piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
AzatRiver (2024-05-24 00:47:45+00:00): Hello FajarAlim, thanks for reaching out. The classification change made was consistent with tagging conventions (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Roads) for Indonesia. The roads appear to provide access to housing and between settlements rather than to allocate traffic between major administrative areas or cities. This short segment is not listed on the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (Kementerian PUPR) Dashboard Infrastruktur map (https://sigi.pu.go.id/astv2/) as a jalan nasional road. I thought that was the authority on the trunk classification in Indonesia. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054396269 seems misplaced as a trunk in my opinion. Is there any other sources to support assigning trunk as the classification? If so, I can make that change back to that classification. Best regards.

Halo FajarAlim, terima kasih sudah menghubungi. Perubahan klasifikasi yang dilakukan konsisten dengan konvensi penandaan (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Roads) untuk Indonesia. Jalan tersebut tampaknya menyediakan akses ke perumahan dan antar permukiman dibandingkan untuk mengalokasikan lalu lintas antar wilayah administratif atau kota besar. Ruas pendek ini tidak tercantum dalam peta Dashboard Infrastruktur Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat (Kementerian PUPR) (https://sigi.pu.go.id/astv2/) sebagai jalan nasional. Saya kira itu kewenangan klasifikasi batang di Indonesia. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054396269 menurut saya tampaknya salah tempat sebagai bagasi. Apakah ada sumber lain yang mendukung penetapan trunk sebagai klasifikasi? Jika demikian, saya dapat melakukan perubahan kembali ke klasifikasi itu. Salam.
FajrAl (2024-05-25 11:59:57+00:00): The road has yellow marking, and planned to connecting with Puspiptek Outer Road. Unfortunately it's paused after the bridge right now. I think it's better if it classified as residential road. (?)
LakeValencia (2024-05-29 04:03:13+00:00): I agree with that classification choice. The road could be revisited and upgraded once construction is completed as well. Thank you for your time!

Saya setuju dengan pilihan klasifikasi itu. Jalan tersebut juga dapat ditinjau kembali dan ditingkatkan setelah konstruksi selesai. Terima kasih atas waktu Anda!
Jordi MF (2024-05-20 16:57:59+00:00): ¿Podrías ser más específico en tus comentarios del changeset sobre qué estás editando? Los comentarios no deben utilizarse para narrar intenciones.
Alina Chebakova (2024-05-20 18:31:42+00:00): Хештег проставлен автоматически с maproulette
Константин Гам (2024-10-26 09:59:07+00:00): Здраствуйте!Пожалуйста не добавляйте несуществующие данные. Дорожка здесь есть и ездить по ней можно на велосипеде, но на местности нет знаков, которые вы вносите в карту "дорога для пешеходов", "движение на велосипеде разрешено", "вело-пешеходная зона".
eggie (2024-05-20 08:24:33+00:00): Dag Jos,

Maar waarom zet je het dan op algemeen Verboden Toegang?
access=no?
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151565744

De straatnaam van een oversteek zal niet Rondweg West zijn. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-05-20 08:25:07+00:00): Maak nooit combinaties met foot=yes en access=no
eggie (2024-05-20 08:29:54+00:00): Ik heb access=no verwijderd (Eigenlijk altijd fout) en informal=yes (olifantenpad) toegevoegd.

Waar staat dat ik hier niet met de fiets mag oversteken en is er een ruiterverbod?
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-05-20 08:35:11+00:00): Situatie bij de MAC angepast
BCNorwich (2024-05-20 10:39:02+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

No need for the private tags on all the nodes. I've tweaked it a bit to OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-12 05:48:53+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164841054
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-20 08:40:21+00:00): 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/514327114

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
pyrog (2024-05-20 09:32:01+00:00): thanks

Yves
SomeoneElse (2024-05-20 08:52:55+00:00): Thanks - some other changes by https://openstreetmap.org/user/noun%20allaoua also look like a problem - are you going to fix those too?
(just checking before I do)
Aleksandar Matejevic (2024-05-30 11:55:58+00:00): Sorry for the late reply. I thin I covered them all, but if I have missed some, please fix them or send me the list
SomeoneElse (2024-05-31 10:50:05+00:00): woodpeck's fixed some others and I've picked up a couple of stragglers in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152074367 .
SomeoneElse (2024-10-03 19:38:04+00:00): Thanks for reverting https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/151566709 , but it looks like the person who did that also changed the names in https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/150898937 .  Using https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/13407035 I've tried to set the names back to the previous values to that https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13407035 is again "Morocco except Western Sahara".
literan (2024-05-20 17:14:52+00:00): зачем вы отрисовали здание там, где его нет (тут площадка дороги?) 

поверх линии дороги
SomeoneElse (2024-09-22 18:46:30+00:00): "bar_billiards" is a completely different game to billiards.
SomeoneElse (2024-09-29 22:49:47+00:00): For info, this is what a bar billiards table looks like: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/241539.jpg .  That's not one of these but the one in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/559267374/ .
multimodaal (2026-07-13 11:29:59+00:00): Hi, just noticed that you removed the tag access_sign:bicycle here. This tag was placed intentionally. Have you removed such tags in more cases in the Netherlands? Thanks for your reply
mueschel (2026-07-13 11:48:10+00:00): This is more than 2 years ago... What I see looking at it now:
1) According to the mapillary image the tag was wrong, because it clearly shows an access sign that bans bicycles.
2) "no" is not one of the possible values for "access_sign".

You can check Taginfo: In 2024 there was just one use of this tag.

PS: Why did you add "access_sign:cycling" to the wiki recently? "cycling" is not a term for some kind of transportation in OSM. That's 'bicycle'.
multimodaal (2026-07-13 15:34:06+00:00): Hi,  fixing typos in tagging is of course appreciated, but broadly changing that you don't know or like without consultation is not so practical, since the original mapper only finds out such thinks years later.  In this case I recently missed an old syntax error in the key because of this change.

re1: both the traffic_sign (red and white) and the access_sign in the picture do not cleary ban bicycles (walking with a bike), the do ban cycling however. The traffic_sign only applies to this stretch of road, the access_sign applies to the whole area. Hence the tag access_sign:cycling=no (and not access_sign=none )    

Re2: as noted in the wiki:
"access_sign=* is used for tagging signs that regulate access conditions to a highway or area that are not a part of the signs in the traffic regulations "
and : 
"access_sign:cycling=* a tag to add the contents about access implications for cycling to the area where the access sign applies"

re PS: see re1 fot the reason for using cycling instead of bicycle . This is more in line with what is known from these signs: it is known that cycling is forbidden, but whether taking a bike with you is often more vague. The different meanings of bicycle=* in OSM is rather problematic in this aspect see e.g. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/solving-the-dreaded-access-dismount-problem/134288
Cheers
mueschel (2026-07-13 15:44:04+00:00): The :foot and :bicycle suffix are well-defined suffixes which can't be simply changed for one tag. "access_sign:bicycle" means that there is an access sign for bicycles. 

Redefining that to completely alter the main key to "an access_sign says that bicycles are not allowed" would be a huge problem for data consumers.

You also shouldn't redefine what 'cycling' means, as this refers to infrastructure for the sport of cycling, not to riding a bike.

All I did is I removed one clearly wrong tag that contradicted the rest of the tags as proven by a photo.

And about dismounting or not: "bicycle=yes/no" refers to riding a bike, not to carrying one. This might be refined in the future but up to now this is the meaning - and this is clearly banned by the sign in question.
multimodaal (2026-07-13 15:59:43+00:00): Hi, could there be a misunderstanding between traffic_sign and access_sign ? You tagged this area with "bicycle=no" , which is incorrect, bicycle=no is a well known OSM value for riding a bike and this does NOT apply to this whole area. (you could make that mistake when you only look at the linked Mapillary image, which shows both kinds of signs, but the access_signs are present at all entries , the traffic_signs are not, they both have a different scope, maybe this wasn't clear.  Cheers
mueschel (2026-07-14 06:35:52+00:00): I know the difference between access and traffic signs.
You say that the access sign visible on the mapillary image is present on all entries - so "access_sign:bicycle=no" is wrong, because there is one access_sign regarding bicycles at every entry.
It can be read that it bans bicycles on the whole area, so bicycle=no. The exceptions are the ways that are explicitly tagged bicycle=yes.
multimodaal (2026-07-16 16:17:20+00:00): Hi, "no" is not a documented value for plain "access_sign=*" , but is is for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access_sign:cycling#Values , so it is not incorrect in regards to the situation on the ground. However, I do think that you have a point that it is unfortunate the values for acces_sign:xxx are different then for the main key, especially with "yes" m, which appears in both, but with a different meaning. What would you suggestion be for a key that aims to do what access_sign:cycling does?
(so not bicycle=* for the area which is a stronger statement then what you want to make if you don't know / have mapped all the exceptions in the area) ?
mueschel (2026-07-17 18:22:09+00:00): I don't see a real impact of using 'bicycle=no' here: 

First, having "not quite correct" tags, and refining them later is very common.
Second, these tags on areas are not commonly interpreted by any (routing) tool I know - so the real world impact of having the restriction on the area but not yet the exceptions on ways tagged.
aceman444 (2024-05-20 09:17:43+00:00): object changes from DGU.hr (2020), Mapillary, ESRI
ika-chan! (2024-05-31 19:12:04+00:00): This changeset was reverted because the road layout of the eastern end of Filosofon does not correspond with the latest Esri World Imagery.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151568651
MxxCon (2024-05-26 01:49:01+00:00): Hello.
Please note that the branch name should go into branch= tag. You can read more about this tag at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:branch
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151569138
Metzor (2024-05-29 19:55:05+00:00): Hallo Kromer,

In der Wallbacher Straße sehe ich keine Einbahnstraße, sondern 2 Spuren auf dem Luftbild.
Ich habe das Einbahnstraßentag wieder gelöscht:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152004950

Passt so, oder?

Gruß
Metzor
Kromer Mobility (2024-05-30 04:54:22+00:00): Das habe ich übersehen, ich habe nur den falschen Straßennamen korrigiert.
Vielen Dank. Gruss. Felix Karl Kromer
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-20 10:10:27+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11919486860

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
rskedgell (2024-05-21 08:58:45+00:00): If it's designated as a public footpath, the value for foot is designated or yes, never unknown.

Although the iD editor presents it as if the field ought to be completed, the general access=no tag is almost never appropriate or helpful on a footway, cycleway, or bridleway.
Millenium0012 (2024-05-21 09:03:42+00:00): Thanks for the feedback. Carrying out a change.
literan (2024-05-20 17:12:39+00:00): зачем вы удалили уже отрисованное здание с адресом и прочими характеристиками и заменили его своим, без всех этих атрибутов? это вандализм
SomeoneElse (2024-05-20 10:24:51+00:00): If you have "local knowledge" of the address of every Starbucks in the USA, I'm impressed!
ajashton (2024-05-20 16:06:41+00:00): What is the purpose of removing this information? It does not seem straight forward or reliable to have to derive an address from the branch tag.

A bunch of these edited Starbucks appear to be standalone locations where the branch is named for a nearby store, not a store they are actually inside.
whammo (2024-05-21 10:49:01+00:00): The thinking is just that these Starbucks are ones that are inside other stores (grocery stores, Targets, etc) that should have their own addresses, and thus these addresses are significantly more likely to be incorrect (either from parsing or because the source data is bad) and/or irrelevant.
Allison P (2024-05-23 19:49:52+00:00): Some of these aren't in stores, despite the branch name. That is the problem.
whammo (2024-05-25 01:31:25+00:00): I'm comfortable being fairly aggressive in removing address data from potential "store in store" Starbucks locations since it was flagged to me as being more prone to error than normal store data. But I'm happy to restore some of it if you all can articulate a better way for me to identify these "store in store" objects than the `branch` tag method I used for this changeset!
MxxCon (2024-05-26 01:51:48+00:00): It's kinda hard to review a changeset for potentially incorrect data deletion when it has 1186 modified objects...
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-26 09:47:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151843063 where the changeset comment is: Reverting 151571627 following discussion on changeset
SomeoneElse (2024-05-26 09:51:48+00:00): I've reverted this since from the comments above it was clearly questionable.  Where there have been interim changes (6 examples) I've not touched those.

It may be that a case can be made for some of these addresses being wrong.  Please make that case at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 .

Please follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct for all changes like this.
skquinn (2025-03-09 13:24:42+00:00): I am currently mapping in Kemah, TX, and the Starbucks inside the Target at 255 Marina Bay Drive duplicates the address on the building. Is there any objection if I remove the address from the Starbucks?
MxxCon (2025-03-09 14:28:49+00:00): @skquinn, it's perfectly valid for a building and poi to have the same address. You shouldn't remove it.
MxxCon (2025-03-09 14:38:44+00:00): Oh, wait, l misread that😅nm
whammo (2025-03-10 11:52:35+00:00): Yeah, POIs and buildings can have the same address info as far as I know, so I don't think you need to remove that information unless it's wrong.
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-23 19:36:35+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151620415
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-23 19:35:35+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151740483
CJJ2501 (2024-05-31 09:37:14+00:00): Hi Tokoloshe13,

You have added this item right at the entrance of national parliament complex, which makes me highly suspicious that this is not the right location. Does this office really exist? If so, where exactly?

Please let me know, otherwise we have to remove this node from the map.

Best,

Chris
CJJ2501 (2024-06-11 14:12:34+00:00): Hi Tokoloshe13,

Since you haven't replied, and since this is clearly not the right location for this point of interest, I am going to remove it from the map.
Let me know if I should add it back somewhere else (i.e. if it really exists somewhere else).

Best,

Chris
wille (2024-05-23 10:42:57+00:00): testing osmcha oauth2
NieWnen (2024-05-27 13:11:00+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4266417

Sprawdzisz?
Sebastian | Yanosik (2024-05-27 13:23:49+00:00): Otwieram, dzięki ;)
https://grodzisknews.pl/koniec-przebudowy-trzech-drog-w-milanowku-autobusu-wracaja-na-stale-trasy/
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-20 11:10:27+00:00): 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/node/11919583380

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
maro21 (2024-05-22 20:17:55+00:00): To jest tutaj droga, czy jest planowana?
OlgierdR (2024-05-23 13:36:32+00:00): Planowana; nie umiem tego zaznaczyć (a może nawet takiej opcji nie ma...?)
maro21 (2024-05-26 23:01:27+00:00): Można np. tak:
https://osm.org/way/580205254/history

W edytorze iD nie da się wyszukać planowanej drogi, trzeba takie tagi wpisać ręcznie.
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-05-29 10:07:09+00:00): Thanks for your contribution in adding building mapping. The mapping looks nice and clear understanding of changeset comments. Keep Contributing, Cheers!!!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151574210
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-20 11:50:23+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11476448728
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1284845854

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NeisBot (2024-05-20 12:00:04+00:00): Hi MrPaull, welcome to OSM!

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

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1284847720

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

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-21 17:30:14+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151576232

The user deleted her/his own beach.
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-23 19:26:42+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151740120
Murrumbidgee (2024-07-02 09:28:20+00:00): Hello nilam920
Thank you for mapping!
I have done fixes for you here you need to add the tunnel yes and layer -1 tags as it is a tunnel in reality the secondary way is passing through the trunk ways way 303555192
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
LockOnGuy (2024-05-20 18:09:58+00:00): Source for name:fa?
TheMoonWalker001 (2024-05-25 18:37:39+00:00): I translated it by using Google translate.
LockOnGuy (2024-05-26 10:18:57+00:00): I removed name:fa from this. please do not add translated names like this again.
contrapunctus (2025-02-24 23:10:04+00:00): Hi Руслан Т! 🙂

Could you please explain why you changed the tag route=subway to route=train in this changeset?

This is a rapid rail project with a dedicated elevated track, and is not part of the regular rail network. My understanding is that this makes it a route=subway, although the wiki does not distinguish very clearly between the two.

This change also (I think) affects rendering and routing in Organic Maps, which only displays route=subway in the subway layer, and only routes along route=subway relations in the subway routing profile. Of course, that's a lesser concern compared to accurately tagging the ground reality...
Murrumbidgee (2024-07-02 09:27:22+00:00): Hello Arjun khotodkar
Thank you for mapping!
Another mapper fixed the task by deleting the tag from the way 1284851293 way and added the bridge tags to the way 1289062121
way 1289062120
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
Murrumbidgee (2024-07-02 14:13:49+00:00): Hello Alseen Dkhar
Thank you for mapping!
I have removed the tags which you added to the way 904120932 which is not needed
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
Murrumbidgee (2024-07-02 09:20:53+00:00): Hello Rutuja02
Thank you for mapping!
I have unglued the residential way from trunk way which incorrect connectivity node 8256792554
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-23 19:29:12+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151717628
Supaplex (2024-05-25 08:28:52+00:00): Hi

Can you explain what are you doing on China's control island? I don't think there is a change of control over this place. The OpenStreetMap project is a collaborative project which maps things that exist in the real. It is not ok to map things only in images.
Your change is reverted in the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151717628
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151577099
Supaplex (2024-05-25 08:29:30+00:00): CHÀO

Bạn có thể giải thích bạn đang làm gì trên hòn đảo do Trung Quốc kiểm soát không? Tôi không nghĩ có sự thay đổi quyền kiểm soát nơi này. Dự án OpenStreetMap là một dự án hợp tác lập bản đồ những thứ tồn tại trong thực tế. Sẽ không ổn nếu chỉ lập bản đồ mọi thứ trong tưởng tượng.
Thay đổi của bạn được hoàn nguyên trong bộ thay đổi: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151717628
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151577099
Supaplex (2024-05-25 08:28:47+00:00): Hi

Can you explain what are you doing on China's control island? I don't think there is a change of control over this place. The OpenStreetMap project is a collaborative project which maps things that exist in the real. It is not ok to map things only in images.
Your change is reverted in the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151717628
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151577139
Supaplex (2024-05-25 08:29:27+00:00): CHÀO

Bạn có thể giải thích bạn đang làm gì trên hòn đảo do Trung Quốc kiểm soát không? Tôi không nghĩ có sự thay đổi quyền kiểm soát nơi này. Dự án OpenStreetMap là một dự án hợp tác lập bản đồ những thứ tồn tại trong thực tế. Sẽ không ổn nếu chỉ lập bản đồ mọi thứ trong tưởng tượng.
Thay đổi của bạn được hoàn nguyên trong bộ thay đổi: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151717628
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151577139
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 08:38:03+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/152127163
Supaplex (2024-05-25 08:28:42+00:00): Hi

Can you explain what are you doing on China's control island? I don't think there is a change of control over this place. The OpenStreetMap project is a collaborative project which maps things that exist in the real. It is not ok to map things only in images.
Your change is reverted in the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151717628
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151577183