piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MarcoR (2024-10-21 20:15:56+00:00): Non riesco a capire dove sarebbe il CAP 03014, potresti essere più preciso?
HellMap (2025-03-28 20:45:46+00:00): Vai šī sēta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1326135984 tiešām šķērso ceļu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1182637437 ? Navigācija nesavienotu sētu ignorēs.
HellMap (2025-03-30 11:01:56+00:00): Es salaboju.
pitscheplatsch (2024-10-20 07:23:29+00:00): Hello ahmet-bozdemir, welcome to OSM!

In my opinion, it is not necessary to add the house number with the name-tag to each house. You could instead use the house number tag. Would that work for you?

Thank you.
tastrax (2024-10-20 06:03:26+00:00): Good edit but I changed the name to Du Cane Brewing as I think that is the official business name. If signage is different then use what is on signage. I have also updated the phone number to the preferred Aussie format https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers Cheers - Phil
VLD292 (2024-12-02 22:26:41+00:00): Hello, I am reaching out looking for more information on Jaffer Sons House.  Is this building a business, private residence, or something else?  Thank you, I appreciate your time.
Zahid Hussain 63 (2024-12-03 19:19:17+00:00): its a private residence
VLD292 (2024-12-04 16:39:19+00:00): Thanks for your reply. Since it is a private residence, I removed the name tag since having inhabitants names on their homes is seen as a privacy issue and generally discouraged in OSM. This wiki page provides more details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
marczoutendijk (2025-09-05 16:00:19+00:00): Hoi emvee,
Hier:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/7105939/history/5
heb je steeds toergevoegd man_made=30
Dat kan niet waar zijn dus heb ik ze maar verwijderd!
Groetjes,
Marc
emvee (2025-09-05 20:37:35+00:00): Inderdaad, dat is fout gegaan, man_made ipv max_speed.

Ik heb nog één man_made=60 gevonden die nu ook verwijderd is.
MrMoehritz (2024-10-20 18:53:17+00:00): Hi mike_hd,

ich hab nochmal ein paar Anpassungen gemacht, die Tags haben noch nicht so ganz gepasst, oder?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158141527
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2024-10-19 21:51:22+00:00): hello, revert this edit. you misjudged the edit i done today which was correct. you even even pointed as souce the city hall of Santa Cruz, when you edit on the municipality of Machico. revert asap.
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2024-10-19 21:52:35+00:00): nevermind., leave it as it is
adaptive (2024-10-19 22:01:42+00:00): No worries and thanks for being alert. I followed the notice (edital) from CMSC and been there today. I will edit further. As Rua dos Casais Próximos is now one way.
mariotomo (2024-10-21 14:03:53+00:00): hola. necesitas ayuda? qué es lo que estás intentando poner en el mapa?
así como lo hiciste, no quiere decir nada según OSM y yo mismo no entiendo y no sabría como mejorarlo.
Phoenix (2024-10-19 22:10:27+00:00): Name of this island is being displayed to big in several zoomlevel overwriting the village name Oldau.
MKnight (2024-10-20 15:59:31+00:00): Moin,
ich habe die Eigenschaften dieses Umrings wieder entfernt, da sie sicher nicht der Realität entsprechen. (Oder geht die Praxis über 3 Hausnummern?)

Was die eigentliche Praxis betrifft: healthcare:speciality hat gewisse Konventionen, die man hier nachlesen kann:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:healthcare:speciality
Ich finde da spontan nix zu Schmerztherapie, aber vielleicht ist was passendes dabei. 
Ich vermute, dass https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:germany/tags/healthcare%3Aspeciality=pain_control#overview am nähesten kommt.
mueschel (2024-10-20 08:01:34+00:00): Hi,
the tag "diameter_trunk" is not used in any other place. The common way to tag the size of the trunk of a tree is using "circumference". Could you convert these tags?
DaveF (2024-10-21 14:00:42+00:00): Hi
Tip:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/246478779
Instead of deleting a current object, only to replaces it, could you use the existing way, in this case a platform, to create the new object. It retains the history of that way which is useful for validation purposes.
dx125 (2024-10-20 09:08:59+00:00): Daumen hoch! 
Mir hat gestern sehr das von mir verwendete Hintergrundbild geholfen, weil es aktueller ist, als alles andere, was an Hintergrund angeboten wird.
In ID musst Du das bei "Ebenen" in "benutzerdefiniert" selbst einstellen.
Trag diese Adresse ein:
https://isk.geobasis-bb.de/mapproxy/sdop/service/wms?FORMAT=image/png&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=bb_sdop&STYLES=&CRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}
(Kopieren -> Einfügen)
Have Fun!
DerLukas15 (2024-10-20 11:11:43+00:00): Hallo :D
Vielen Dank. Das hilft natürlich deutlich. Ich wäre die Tage zu Edeka gegangen und hätte mir so die genauen Punkte geholt. So ist es aber noch einfacher.
tjoeker (2025-02-21 23:03:43+00:00): Hey Sikal, what is your source on the higher speed? Has the speed been updated recently? I'm asking cuz I found Eimai, the last updater of the maxspeed stat to be very trustworthy in this regard.
Sikal (2025-02-21 23:31:20+00:00): Hi Tjoeker,
My sources are personal knowledge gained by myself or with the help of train drivers.

The speeds that I have given are those allowed by ETCS (deployed in south of Brussels in June 2023), which are sometimes higher than the speeds allowed by trackside signals.
tjoeker (2025-06-14 12:19:04+00:00): Hey sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the response! That reaffirms your edits are probably correct, ETCS related speed increases. I'm cautious because in the past people have invented speed limits or edited to what they felt was right. :)
gpserror (2024-10-20 16:58:17+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM!  Just wanted to let you know that someone spotted an accidental mistake you did by dragging a node making a road real crooked.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4486424 - I ended up fixing them so it should look okay now.  Just a reminder to carefully check your clicks and drags before uploading your changes!
Wakey1 (2024-10-21 00:54:38+00:00): Thank you! I did notice a couple things I hadn't intended to do in my changeset list, but I couldn't find a way to void some changes and keep the rest. I should have started over--I didn't know one of them caused such a serious error.

Can I ask you a question? They're adding a circular island at the intersection near me, and that's what spurred me to edit the map. But I can't figure out how to label it properly. The two streets that intersect don't widen, and it's not its own right-of-way--it's just a barrier in the middle of the intersection to make people slow down and drive around. It seems from here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout#Why_is_it_important_to_follow_this_tagging_guideline_if_the_map_looks_good_even_when_tagged_differently? that I might want "junction=circular", but while I can label it a junction, I don't see the two-part label as a choice. My other option is "traffic calming island", which is a choice on the list. But since it's in an intersection, I thought the other one would be better. Thanks for any guidance you care to offer.
gpserror (2024-10-21 12:43:42+00:00): Oooh, that also annoys me that city planners do something like that.  Yeah technically that should also be marked as a "roundabout" though it's too small to actually take advantage of the key aspect of the structure: you have right of way when you're in in the structure and all people entering it must yield.  I think the other thing is that if you needed to take a left turn in the new intersection, do you turn right?

If these two aspects are not met then it probably shouldn't be tagged as a roundabout especially if the latter isn't met and perhaps traffic calming island is a better choice.  Are there photographs of the intersection anywhere?
Wakey1 (2024-10-21 18:50:12+00:00): If you need to take a left turn, yes you should turn right, i.e. go counterclockwise around the obstruction. I'm pretty sure almost all cars will do that, though I've heard that delivery drivers sometimes don't; a lot of bikes won't bother.

Here are Street View images of similar intersections, also in Berkeley. 
1. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8730555,-122.2956835,3a,75y,250.31h,74.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smLP9CDmzVbyDxUDXAAON0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D . The sign does say to go around to the right, and it's designed to not let you drive over it. On OSM, it's not called out at all. (Ninth and Virginia.) But it's much smaller than the one I want to add.
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8597735,-122.2645179,3a,75y,77.29h,90.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY-hZ4jsdWG6cMpofNK7CKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D . This is more like what they're building on my block. It's marked on the map (Ward and Fulton) as a one-way residential road. I see that the tag list says "junciton" in column 1 and "roundabout" in column 2, so maybe that's the answer to my question. I don't know if the circular roadway gets automatically drawn with those tags or what.
gpserror (2024-10-21 19:10:11+00:00): Ah, so yes, if it's like that, it's a tiny but true "roundabout" - not a "mini-roundabout" since it has something that prohibits driving over the center. 

So...to answer your question about automatic drawing... Nope, nothing is automatically drawn, heh.  So to properly do this you could draw a little circle for the roundabout (you can use the "circle" tool to make a really rough circle, i.e. a triangle or a square even, and turn it into a circle) and draw the roads to it.  Or I think in this case you can just leave it as a crossing intersection and tag the cross intersection with junction=roundabout and direction=counterclockwise much like that second example photo in the wiki with the black corrugated pillar with arrows on it.   Hope this is clear enough?
Wakey1 (2024-10-24 20:01:05+00:00): That makes sense, and I just did it that way--I think. I'll check back later to see if it "took." Thanks for the advice, and again for the correction.
mueschel (2024-10-20 08:08:19+00:00): Hi,
something went wrong here. You deleted the wrong version of the objects - removing the original one and keeping new ones with wrong tags like 

id = 289462654
relations = []
type= way


Your duplication issue happened 
because you loaded a geojson or similar file into JOSM and then try to upload it. You have to load data directly from the API or Overpass - every other way will lead to duplicates and not to editing the already existing objects.
Anonymous897234 (2024-10-21 04:39:43+00:00): Yeah. It was a bit 50/50 on which duplicate I removed. 

Background was the use of https://osminedit.pavie.info to do indoor tagging; that site failed on upload but lets you download the changeset as geojson, which then failed to merge in JOSM. Mistakes were made. 

I'll do another round of cleanup to drop the extra tags. Main impact I see is loss of history on some of the elements on this one city block.
ZLima12 (2025-11-09 03:51:50+00:00): Hi,

Running through a town like this does not disqualify a road from being trunk. If the road should be trunk on both sides of the town (in this case US-206 on the north and NJ-54 on the south), then it should probably be trunk inside the town too, even if traffic would normally go slower.
umapjpnic793 (2024-10-20 14:56:51+00:00): こんにちは、この区画についてwikidataと紐づけして頂き、ありがとうございます。リレーション設定が閉じたエリアになっていなかったので修正させていただきました。確認の程よろしくおねがいします。
changeset: 158131387
RicoElectrico (2025-09-02 08:29:50+00:00): Cześć, skąd pochodzi nazwa lasu? Patrz https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4939811
❤️‍🔥 (2024-12-14 07:06:23+00:00): Hi, there's a sidewalk on this bridge.... Are you sure you edited the correct feature?
citrula (2024-10-22 07:12:58+00:00): Hi Anthony, did they remove the bridge? It looks like it's still there in the 2024-03-07 Esri imagery.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158111776
Anthony Bettanin (2024-10-23 03:12:51+00:00): The bridge is still there, but there is no path leading to either side of it.
InsertUser (2024-10-20 15:19:23+00:00): I have not followed this closely as my main interest is on another island, but I was under the impression that the public access to the southern point was meant to be maintained after the project was complete. 

Of course on the ground survey is of course preferred to promises as far as OSM is concerned.
Zandu (2024-10-20 15:32:22+00:00): I found a new map I had not seen on the island that talked about how Disney donated about 190 acres of the 700 purchase for public beaches and conservation. I also saw on their Disney’s progress page a better map that does show planned work for the southern beach. I have restored the road and added the name back to the beach based on this info. Thanks for the tip. https://lighthousepointbahamas.com/progress/
InsertUser (2024-10-20 16:56:39+00:00): The issue is that that map is on a page that's "© Disney Copyright 2024. All Rights Reserved". Unless a map has specific permission for OSM to use or is under a limited number of pre-reviewed licenses they generally can't be used for improving OSM. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright

The most likely place for up to date (but low res) imagery for tracing is Sentinel 2, but they've recently completely changed the way the distribute data so I haven't had the chance to look at how it has to be accessed these days.
Zandu (2024-10-20 17:12:37+00:00): Yep. All good points. I didn’t copy any data from the map other than a justification in the note for other mappers to know it might still be there and hopefully confirm with future surveys. I had taken the name off the beach from not finding it on the published tourist map but restored it after reading the article that talked about the lighthouse and access to the beach likely being public. 

I’ll try to find out about the sentinel 2 imagery. I noticed the bing imagery is from 2022. And I haven’t seen anything more recent.
mavl (2024-10-20 05:12:38+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок добавляет объект с названием "Автомат для набора воды". "Автомат для набора воды" - это не название объекта, а его описание.  
  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12270318401  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F
aandersen55 (2024-10-20 04:01:13+00:00): Needs removed. Accidentally created duplicate of existing data.
Mapiate (2024-12-11 18:15:54+00:00): Reverted in changeset 160179198 to remove the duplicate runways.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 04:53:33+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165095630
Kovoschiz (2024-10-20 08:47:50+00:00): 1. Please don't delete & redraw. This makes tracking changes more difficult. Simply move them to the correct position.
2. You removed the concave part detail on the south side of blocks 2 to 5
3. `=living_street` means a signposted legally pedestrian priority road, not any road
tyfi (2024-10-20 04:46:34+00:00): I deleted a transient feature picked up by Microsoft building footprints, too
Kovoschiz (2024-10-20 08:49:11+00:00): A `=service` road has been deleted without even replacing it. Please don't upload incomplete edits.
obache (2024-11-25 02:45:56+00:00): かなり前に廃止され、建物も既に取り壊されてしまっている「岡山東警察署 豊駐在所」(OSMからは既に削除済みでした)を新たに追加されていますが、何の情報を基にされていますでしょうか。

また、変更セットのタグを拝見いたしますと、Bingの写真を下敷きにされているようですが、多少の位置ずれは写真自体のずれですので、道路の位置を修正する場合には、Bingの写真を元に位置を守勢する場合、その点にご配慮いただけると幸いです。
setomaps (2024-11-25 08:34:58+00:00): 今後の編集に反映します。
SzymonH (2024-12-30 05:09:21+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52007728
The road and track are under the hump. The visible rectangular object above the tracks is the signal box building. Check here for example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/97918773@N08/51114029983
nickvet419 (2024-12-30 05:46:53+00:00): fixed,   thanks, i overlooked that bit.
robby_rumble (2025-04-28 13:56:15+00:00): Please stop tagging service roads inside railyards as allowed access=yes. We have discussed this on multiple occasions

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1326188774#map=18/41.762592/-87.725795
nickvet419 (2025-04-28 16:21:17+00:00): @robby_rumble no need for a lecture, mistakes are made sometimes. We have also discussed how that is a default setting, not an intentional tag.
robby_rumble (2025-04-28 16:39:18+00:00): @nickvet419 not a lecture, just a request to clean up the sloppy editing.
DUGA (2024-12-03 15:15:55+00:00): I want to give you a friendly reminder that we use TIGER tags to primarily verify if the road is aligned or not, but if the only purpose of you to remove these tags is to verify if the names are correct, it brings more issues to other mappers and you may need to stop.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64156496#map=17/41.289090/-76.309640
blocal186 (2024-12-03 22:20:27+00:00): I should have used the word aligned instead of bounds. Roads were checked for alignment.
DUGA (2024-12-03 22:23:32+00:00): Nope.

Many are not aligned. Let’s be real if one or two aren’t handled I won’t leave you this comment.

I will have to watch your change history and then manually examine, please let me know if you are only active in Columbia Co so I can pull your history without worrying about other areas.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:21:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:13:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:20:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:15:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:11:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:14:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:10:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
rhhs (2024-10-21 07:14:56+00:00): In this case, the building should be split in two because that's how it is shown in cadastre (you can see it on images as well). Then the addresses can be put on the buildings. I did this with this building and the one east of it (which is 3 buildings). We should have a discussion on how to map addresses in BG...
Dimitar155 (2024-10-21 19:28:35+00:00): The cadastre sometimes does strange things. I wouldn't follow them blindly. The (yet another) addresses discussion suggestion is coming a bit early if you ask me. We can wait until the cadastre is done with whatever it has to do and see what data they will open for public usage.
rhhs (2024-10-22 04:31:13+00:00): Agree, they also make mistakes, so ground truth should come first
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:17:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:10:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
nevw (2024-10-20 10:20:48+00:00): HI Alex, are you able to add the street name?
fortera_au (2024-10-20 10:42:57+00:00): Hi Alex, we can't use Google Maps as a source, this probably needs to be reverted and redacted
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158115205
nevw (2024-10-20 11:19:45+00:00): I did not notice that Alex used Google as a source to map this. I have remapped the entire area using Ersi imagery. I feel it should still all be reverted and redacted and after that we can remap using imagery available to us in the editors.
Alexk25434 (2024-10-20 11:47:04+00:00): hey guys sorry about this. It was my first time and i didnt really know what i was doing. I live in this estate.
nevw (2024-10-20 14:00:01+00:00): We all make a few beginner mistakes. If it gets reverted and redacted it is easy enough to remap using the Ersi imagery available in the editors. Are you able to check the street name for us Alex?
echse (2025-09-28 11:23:20+00:00): Das Haus existiert nicht mehr. Es wurde abgerissen und das Grundstück in zwei geteilt.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:21:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
rempshaener (2024-10-20 14:45:13+00:00): Hinweis auf https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158100192 und den dortigen Review.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:11:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
Jimmyisawkward (2024-10-20 21:08:47+00:00): Hello, I'm confused on what the problem was here originally. What did you fix?
uneaten puffed (2024-10-20 21:19:34+00:00): The inner and outer ways of the original 17923509 multi-polygon shared an edge at the south end near 75th St, which is an error in JOSM and https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr - inner ways should be completely surrounded by the enclosing outer way area.
Svalbard (2024-10-22 17:52:56+00:00): Hallo Armin1967, gibt es den Weg physisch nicht mehr oder ist er nur nicht befahrbar, weil dort ein Elektrozaun steht? Sofern der Weg physisch noch vorhanden ist, hat er in OpenStreetMap auch seine Berechtigung und sollte nicht gelöscht werden. Den Zaun kann man mit einem way „barrier=fence“ u. „fence_type=electric“ eintragen. Gruß Svalbard