piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2026-06-29 19:21:24+00:00): Dag Damp,

Wanneer je dit aanpast klopt de rijstrookbegeleiding niet meer..
through|through|right
Je krijgt nu verkeerde informatie. 
Hoe zit het nu?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-06-29 19:34:03+00:00): https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@52.39234,5.569438,19/?datastrip=20260607_SVNEO-03&sensorname=SuperView-NEO
eggie (2026-06-29 19:35:46+00:00): turn:lanes voorlopig aangepast naar through|through|right|right
eggie (2026-06-29 19:58:25+00:00): De nw weg klopt nog niet.. daar staat nog left|through|through met 4 rijstroken. Pas je dat nog aan?
eggie (2026-06-30 06:54:48+00:00): aangepast
districtmapper (2026-07-03 16:15:02+00:00): Thank you for tagging these. I saw them the other day but couldn't pin their location myself because I was driving.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-15 05:13:27+00:00): DWG revert - unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185760941
Frans S (2026-07-02 12:12:21+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please do not cluster buildings and tag it as 1 building.
Each building need to be mapped as an individual building. 
Rectangular buildings squared with the Q key while still selected.
Best regards and keep mapping
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 20:15:45+00:00): Who said Madiun is far superior to Ngawi? Madiun is on par with Ngawi according to the East Java Provincial Spatial Plan (RTRW) as a medium city
NaufalFarras (2026-06-30 04:47:34+00:00): On which page? Madiun is classified as city and Ngawi is not
NaufalFarras (2026-06-30 04:57:37+00:00): Here is a reality check for you: Ngawi is not a city according to Kemendagri. It does not even have or categorized as Regional Activity Center (PKW) according to the East Java's RTRW. In order to surpass Madiun's population, Ngawi must combine population data from three districts.
ggs290 (2026-06-30 08:44:33+00:00): Hola, has eliminado un edificio del mapa. ¿El edificio ya no existe o ha sido un accidente?
caprieldeluca (2026-06-29 22:09:01+00:00): Hola, gracias por contribuir con el mapa! Revisé los cambios, corregí errores en las etiquetas del sendero. En el editor que usaste hay una sección Issues que avisa si hay errores, antes de cerrar y subir el conjunto de cambios. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Argentina#Contacto
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 21:30:41+00:00): Please make it a habit to use the place=town tag in Indonesia for sub-district capitals, not regency capitals.
Since regencies and autonomous cities are at the same level in Indonesia, it's better to use place=city to ensure fairness and impartiality.

Okay..??
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 21:33:21+00:00): Because the urban identity of the regency is attached to the name of the regency capital area, therefore use place=city to avoid confusion.
NaufalFarras (2026-06-30 04:34:07+00:00): Then you should create discussion on OSM Community form, OSM Wiki proposal, or Indonesian Telegram group based on that argument. I also somewhat disagree with tagging regency center using the same tag as district towns. However, I choose to follow community guideline instead of forcing my argument into large-scale edit of the map without discussion.
yelisey90 (2026-07-14 19:48:54+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1533617380
This is not a road that is located completely within a parking lot, so it can't be service=parking_aisle
Please read the wiki page for service=parking_aisle and fix the road
Altts (2026-07-15 10:56:59+00:00): Hi! fixed it, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185776150#map=19/41.702919/44.881917
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 21:18:35+00:00): Is Gudo actually a district or a village? Why use highway=secondary?
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 21:19:44+00:00): Sorry for the typo, why use highway=teritiary?
NaufalFarras (2026-06-30 02:38:03+00:00): It is a district. Secondary roads are only acceptable for connection between regency capital or Local Activity Center to districts around it.

In this case, Kabupaten Jombang administrative center is in Jombang district itself. There are two other Local Activity Centers in Jombang, Mojoagung and Ploso. However, based on their proximity, they are not activity center for Gudo. So, the link between Jombang and Gudo is the only one deserved to be classified as highway=secondary in this area.

Link from Gudo to Jombang is already accomodated through secondary road from Temuwulan-Wangkalkepuh. There is also an alternative link through primary road via Diwek. Both secondary and primary connections to Gudo are also connected to Pare and Ngasem, two Local Activity Centers in Kediri. Thus, no more secondary roads are needed.
NaufalFarras (2026-06-30 04:30:14+00:00): Correction: Local Activity Center shouldn't be used for reference point for secondary roads, but they can be used as reference point for tertiary roads.

However in this case, my point still stands. Connection between Gudo and Jombang regency center is already accomodated by both secondary road on the west and primary road on the east.
VLD0251 (2026-07-23 20:52:26+00:00): Hello, i have already pointed out several times that generic terms such as “مسجد” should not be used as a value for the name=* tag. please take this into account and only add the official name of the place if it is known
silversurfer83 (2026-07-01 19:14:57+00:00): Moin

wie ist denn die Beschilderung von dem Feld/Waldweg den du hier mit access=forestry getaggt hast?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184815222
silversurfer83 (2026-07-01 19:16:19+00:00): Der Tag tree=* ist nicht definiert. Guck mal unter natural=tree, wie du die Art besser angeben kannst.

Und lass dir nicht alles von einem LLM erklären, weil das nur Grütze gibt
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184815222
BCNorwich (2026-07-03 05:55:37+00:00): Hi, if there is permissive foot access to the footpaths, then it's incorrect to tag them as access=no. The access=no tag means no access of any kind. When access is limited like this you should tag the restricted access, like horse=no or vehicle=no.

I've removed the access=no tags for you.

Regards Bernard.
FORW Woodland Warden (2026-07-03 11:01:06+00:00): Good spot! Many thanks indeed for removing the offending tag. All the best.
Nakaner (2026-07-03 10:59:10+00:00): Hallo,

aus welchen Verkehrszeichen entnimmst du, dass der Radweg des Öjendorfer Damms in Fahrtrichtung Norden zwischen Beekampsweg und Bekkamp benutzungspflichtig ist?

Viele Grüße

Michael
DwarfNebula_ (2026-06-29 22:47:47+00:00): Ik heb de except=emergency tag verplaatst naar het juiste object (de verboden linksaf relatie) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531065
GA_Kevin (2026-07-04 02:41:23+00:00): Thanks for adding this information and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-29 22:58:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 184823082 where the changeset comment is: revert block-evading unsourced construction edits and more, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20878
Fraxi (2026-06-30 14:57:55+00:00): Сложих основен таг за помпената станция и махнах "Помпена станция", понеже, изглежда, е описателно.
Joseph R P (2026-06-29 20:11:39+00:00): Sorry for the big box. This was completely accidental. I will have to revert this again it also reverted my own previous changes.
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-29 22:58:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 184823082 where the changeset comment is: revert block-evading unsourced construction edits and more, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20878
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 20:13:43+00:00): Ngawi's position is indeed a city, so it is appropriate to use place=city
NaufalFarras (2026-06-29 20:17:39+00:00): It is not. Ngawi is not a city based on government's classification. It is only a regency.

And also, how would you solve the rendering issue? What justify Ngawi to be rendered bigger than Madiun, main city in this area and more important than Ngawi?
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 20:20:26+00:00): According to the East Java Provincial RTRW, Ngawi and Madiun are categorized as medium cities, not small cities
NaufalFarras (2026-06-29 20:23:18+00:00): According to Kemendagri, Ngawi is not a city. Indonesian community follow this since there is a debate whether population alone would justify "city" classification. Please engage with community discussion, instead of forcing your own definition
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 20:26:54+00:00): Here it does not mean that the city at the district level is being mentioned, but rather represents several district capitals in the surrounding area.
NaufalFarras (2026-06-29 20:35:04+00:00): Still, it does not classify as a city. Only a district functioned as regency center of activity and administration.

I also have checked RTRW you mentioned. There is no proof that Ngawi is a medium city.
MappingMore (2026-07-01 04:56:58+00:00): Partially Revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184816297
eggie (2026-06-30 06:50:20+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-29 22:58:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 184823082 where the changeset comment is: revert block-evading unsourced construction edits and more, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20878
Udarian (2026-06-29 23:40:40+00:00): This vertex was already tagged as a traffic signal which from what I can tell still exists, if you want to add an ALPR at this intersection please add a new node at the actual location of the ALPR, not in the middle of the road where there is already something that is already mapped.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Gaung Tebono (2026-06-29 20:24:54+00:00): Don't rely on government regulations, but on existing functions. OSM is indeed flexible.
NaufalFarras (2026-06-29 20:44:31+00:00): It is flexible, but based on community consensus, not on individual basis.
NaufalFarras (2026-06-30 02:19:13+00:00): Again, please explain what is your reason for upgrading these roads into highway=secondary. If you have no reason, then i will continue trying to retain them as highway=tertiary. Even if that means editing war.
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-29 22:58:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 184823082 where the changeset comment is: revert block-evading unsourced construction edits and more, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20878
Wildsharky (2026-07-02 06:40:44+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184952835
silversurfer83 (2026-06-30 14:28:23+00:00): Gude :)

kann es sein, dass du bei dem Gelände der Autowerkstatt einfach den Vorschlag des Editors übernommen hast?

Das Ergebnis für das Gelände ist zumindest, dass da jetzt building=yes dran steht. Das muss vmtl. wieser weg. shop=car_repair am Gelände lassen ist absolut ok. Wenn du noch nen Namen oder so hast, dann mach den noch dabei

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184817465
vasony (2026-07-05 08:22:13+00:00): És melyik a Liget köz amire ez számozva van?
BáthoryPéter (2026-07-05 08:35:09+00:00): Valószínűleg a Liget utca nem utca hanem köz, de tervben van, hogy utánajárok.
literan (2026-06-30 19:08:15+00:00): это не названия. В поле name пишите только имена собственные, а не описания и номера
alpacaMaps (2026-07-12 22:03:22+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-19 23:59:12+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely. Several of the nodes are stacked near or atop one another. There are also nodes in fields near this neighborhood added by this individual.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-29 22:58:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 184823082 where the changeset comment is: revert block-evading unsourced construction edits and more, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20878
kitsee (2026-06-30 08:21:08+00:00): Hello ConWH, 
Thanks for contributing to open street map.
I've done a partial revert here specifically on the river. What you did was not incorrect however you did delete and recreate the river, losing the history and some of the tags of the way. This is consider bad practice and should be avoid when possible.
 
Also a note on the layers, ground level is by default on layer 0. the original river way that I've restored was tagged with layer=-1 which would be correct in this situation. 

Please feel free to ask any questions if you wish.
Kind regards,
Kits
ftrebien (2026-06-29 21:06:15+00:00): Provável vandalismo: repetição parcial do changeset 184533609 feito pelo usuário bloqueado GabiruX_.
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-29 22:58:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 184823082 where the changeset comment is: revert block-evading unsourced construction edits and more, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20878
eggie (2026-06-30 06:51:10+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Komputilo (2026-06-30 07:40:41+00:00): Ik heb het welkomsbericht gelezen. Leuk om te zien dat de wijziging geaccepteerd is!
Marcos Dione (2026-06-30 03:32:13+00:00): Está muy bien, sólo tené en cuenta que no se pueden usar imágenes de Google porque temas de licencia.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184818615
Kamil Kalata (2026-06-30 08:41:55+00:00): Witaj!
Skoro ruch został przełożony, na jezdnię zachodnią, to odcinek zaraz za węzłem Żyrzyn (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/610562509) powinien być otwarty, czyż nie?
charl3s (2026-06-30 09:12:56+00:00): tak, mój błąd. dzięki za wyłapanie
ftrebien (2026-06-29 21:08:57+00:00): Obviamente vandalismo.
Wildsharky (2026-06-30 10:44:51+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184847260
caprieldeluca (2026-06-30 14:11:33+00:00): Hola. Consideramos que este cambio es incorrecto. Intentamos revertirlo por completo.
- wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Argentina#Contacto
silversurfer83 (2026-07-10 14:32:47+00:00): Hi there :)

please don't just delete features that are still very clearly visible on the most recent aerials.

It is much better to change the tags to reflect reality. If the ramp is still there but is closed off you can add a node with a fittign barrier=* tag at the proper position and you can add a fitting access=* tag to the feature that is no longer usable.

People without knowledge will add that piece of highway back to the database otherwise. Also, if there is still asphalt on the ground, we map that, too.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184819075
ftrebien (2026-06-29 21:13:28+00:00): Vandalismo: construção fictícia sem fonte que não aparece nas imagens.
ftrebien (2026-06-29 21:23:00+00:00): Nenhuma fonte disponível na Internet menciona construção em andamento ou sequer planos para construir neste local um anel viário / rodoanel.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-30 01:37:49+00:00): max width 0, please explain: it means it is not passable at all?
Émilio (2026-07-01 18:53:33+00:00): The question was "what is the width of the opening here?" with a wheelchair icon and a ruler icon.

I understood the question as "what is the height between the two surfaces to cross?" but re-reading I probably read that wrong. I’m not sure how to undo those changes though
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-07-01 22:29:51+00:00): I fixed it. Thanks!
okadatsuneo (2026-06-30 01:23:11+00:00): こんにちは。
OSMにようこそ。
多くの建物に "building:levels=2" と入れていますが、何の情報に基づいていますか？
不確実な情報は入れないで下さい。
よろしくお願いします。
LordGarySugar (2026-06-29 22:08:41+00:00): Hi, when you are adding terraced houses, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1533687272, they should be connected to their neighbours. Thanks.
Alex-P (2026-06-30 21:56:12+00:00): Gotcha. Is there an efficient way of "snapping" two ways/buildings together? I'm using the iD editor and manually moving traces to ensure they are adjacent but not overlapping is a bit laborious.
Alex-P (2026-07-03 22:45:29+00:00): I am beginning to learn the JOSM editor as it looks like all serious mappers end up there. Got to build the skillz to get better at this.
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-07 14:30:29+00:00): Refs are not names.  Instead of things like "name=Highway 181", the correct value would be "noname=yes"
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184819623
SD Mapman (2026-07-07 15:16:43+00:00): I disagree with that. This convention aligns with Nebraska, Colorado, South Dakota, and Wyoming. How exactly the reference number is converted into name depends on the locality, so an address/road name cannot be determined from "ref" without knowing every locality's formatting rules.
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-07 21:58:50+00:00): Yeah I don't think US states are special to be an exception to the rest of the world, much less in a worse way.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-02 02:27:54+00:00): Please read and follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments I guess

Specifying location is not needed, this is inherently in edit itself.

BTW, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184607458 was even worse (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/loschung-von-parking-aisle-und-parking-space/145018 )

If you mass delete object describing it as "tagging revised" is highly misleading
World_Winner (2026-06-30 12:08:06+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184850713
yelisey90 (2026-07-14 19:58:34+00:00): partly reverted - balderdash, no such road exists

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185739498
Adinurbekov (2026-07-16 03:18:12+00:00): Well you're right
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-15 05:13:28+00:00): DWG revert - unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185760941
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-02 02:43:21+00:00): Thanks! Was looking forward to when this would be completed.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184820385
ftrebien (2026-06-29 21:48:33+00:00): Vandalismo. Algumas das vias excluídas são construções em andamento conforme imagens de satélite mais recentes.
SomeoneElse (2026-06-29 22:22:24+00:00): Blake Street is oneway as mapped - oneway south past Ask, no entry northbound at the other end.
yelisey90 (2026-07-14 20:20:49+00:00): Don't forget that if there's a technical storey at the top of an apartment building, it's still a separate storey and should be counted in building:levels, even though it may be less in height that a regular storey. Usually, if there are small window slits, then there's a technical storey
johsin18 (2026-07-07 19:16:15+00:00): Du hast die Adresse un Telefonnummer entfernt.  War das Absicht?
LordGarySugar (2026-06-29 22:06:06+00:00): Please make sure to split buildings where they are semidetached houses or terraced houses, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1533717922. Some of the footprints you have accepted are wonky or do not include the full building area such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1533717931. Thanks.
Alex-P (2026-06-30 21:54:33+00:00): Thanks for pointing these out. I have manually recreated many of the ways to better reflect terraced buildings.
LordGarySugar (2026-07-04 00:56:40+00:00): Thanks for fixing these up! Please make sure, when you have two semidetached houses that they share nodes with each other. They have been drawn very close to one another, but not connected. Thanks again for redoing these buildings :)
Alex-P (2026-07-04 16:50:54+00:00): Indeed, I'm rather new to urban mapping. I am just starting to learn JOSM and see that with the building and uberterracer plugins one can build beautiful, perfectly symmetrical terraces. I will find and delete whatever ugliness I have introduced and just use JOSM going forward. Thanks for bearing with me.
Alex-P (2026-07-04 22:24:42+00:00): Okay I've hopefully replaced most of my slop now with well-aligned buildings by JOSM buildings + uberterrace plugins. If you spot anything else please let me know. Thanks again.
Ed_slv (2026-06-30 13:17:09+00:00): Uma pergunta à comunidade
Sofrerá de analfabetismo funcional ?
Será dislexia?
Terá anoxia?
Vamos tentar explicar:
Registo Predial - Trata da propriedade (posse) de um determinado predio (urbano/rustico)
Cadastro - Trata da identificação (area e local) de um determinado prédio (urbano/rústico)
Os mapas da OSMF não usam nem o RPredial nem o Cadastro. Usam o que está no terreno. A Quinta do Bom Palreu não vai até não sei onde. Ia! Agora termina na vedação da central solar que de acordo com o OSM se chama "Parque Solar Escalabis" Tudo o que existia anteriormente desapareceu para os próximos 30 anos.
Ed_slv (2026-06-30 13:31:07+00:00): Alguém se voluntariza para explicar a este sr as projecções, os datum e os problemas da implantação no terreno ? Alguém consegue que ele entenda que as implantações no terreno dependem de medidas que podem estar mais ou menos corretas (questão das probabilidades ?
Obrigado
PL 2188677 (2026-06-30 13:32:27+00:00): O Parque Solar Escalabis encontra-se implantado em ambas as quintas (a referida e a Quinta do Falcão). A Quinta não desapareceu. Conheço os proprietários dessa quinta e vizinhos, vamos lá todos os dias e isso não é bem assim.... A Quinta abrange todo o espaço à volta, incluindo esses dois terrenos. Quintas  não são edifícios com números de polícias normais, são terrenos grandes conforme estão desenhados no mapa e nesse caso conta o Registo Predial, que é o para todos os efeitos válido no Estado Português.
PL 2188677 (2026-06-30 13:38:39+00:00): As medidas em questão não são indefinidas. Por exemplo a DGT em pedidos vinculativos sobre extremas e marcos costuma indicar coordenadas com um erro quadrático médio de 0,9 m e um erro máximo 2,5 m, sendo que em medições o centroide (o valor central) é centroide porque é o valor mais provável. Se se refere às fronteiras dos terrenos do lado, fique sabendo que, conforme relatório da Câmara Municipal, os marcos foram movimentados, e isso é crime. Foi o que aconteceu. Tivemos de ser nós a pedir a correção.
PL 2188677 (2026-06-30 13:41:01+00:00): Os marcos existem no terreno e as pessoas que estão no terreno conhecem-no. Faça o favor de se deslocar aqui, para verificar a realidade no terreno.
PL 2188677 (2026-06-30 13:50:55+00:00): Os marcos existem no terreno e as pessoas que estão no terreno conhecem-nos.