piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
jmapb (2025-10-09 01:20:58+00:00): Thanks for the trail data improvements!

There are indeed regional variations in mapping style, & I bet leisure=park is in use for dozens, maybe hundreds of places like this in NYS -- it's an older tag, so that wouldn't be too surprising. I can think of a couple nearby I edited this year (Cheesecote Mountain Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406448162 and High Tor State Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435087846) that I found tagged as leisure=park & left them that way... because generally I am a "let's leave it as-is" kind of mapper, more concerned with the trails and boundaries than the tagging.

But matthewfecica,  you did not "leave it as-is" -- per the changeset comment, you "corrected feature type"! So if you believe leisure=park is a better tag for Cranberry Lake Preserve, please explain why.
matthewfecica (2025-10-09 01:37:57+00:00): Thank you for agreeing with me. And I agree, the main focus should be on collecting data that is missing such as trails, woods roads, benches, parking lots...etc. 

I edited it originally for consistency. Westchester County manages 25+ parks, each with wide variety of features/uses. If some are tagged as parks while others nature reserve, it creates some inconsistency.

And in Westchester at least, I've been trying to sort of standardize certain tag formats. For example with trail names I'll use 'Quarry Trail (blue)', as an example. If you are hiking, just 'Quarry Trail' does not help much, so also having the blaze color in parentheses is helpful from a hikers perspective. 

And some parks can be subject to debate. Like Rockefeller State Park I did not touch at all. There are lot of carriage roads and some fields, but a huge portion of the park is natural woods. Or there is Ridge Road which has a few sports fields and picnic areas, but the same thing, a lot of woods and some hiking trails. I think the land use would be a better representation of what is in the park. For example if a separate area is drawn and then tagged as forest, or wetland, or meadow, or field, that can provide a lot more information to someone that is looking on the map.
ZLima12 (2025-10-09 02:24:44+00:00): I would agree that Rockefeller State Park Preserve is more of a borderline case, as it is more managed and has more amenities when compared to some of the other locations in question. I would not change it from leisure=park without getting consensus first.

However, I think that consistency in this case is undesirable, since we want to be able to tell the difference between a leisure=park (is landscaped, has amenities, and is a good gathering place for miscellaneous recreation), and a place that is more suited for hiking or nature observation.

Some examples of what I would consider a leisure=park:
- Croton Gorge Park
- Glen Island Park
- Kensico Dam Plaza
- Central Park
- Flushing Meadows–Corona Park

Some things I would consider a leisure=nature_reserve or otherwise not a leisure=park (all of these have been changed from nature_reserve to park):
- Crawbuckie Nature Preserve
- Hardscrabble Wilderness Area
- Brinton Brook Sanctuary
- Cranberry Lake Preserve

As for tags that would be consistent between all Westchester County parks, I would support `operator=Westchester County`, and possibly `boundary=protected_area`. I would be open to other suggestions here, but I do think that the leisure value should be allowed to vary so as to allow data consumers to treat the locations accordingly.

Either way, as jmapb said, these sorts of places had already been tagged as leisure=nature_reserve by a variety of mappers prior to being changed over the last few months. If we want to leave things as-is until we reach consensus on which tags to use, then I think the tags should be set to what they had been prior to the retagging here.
jmapb (2025-10-09 02:43:14+00:00): If the only reason to tag this place leisure=park is for consistency with other Westchester-managed parks... that's not great.

I mentioned a couple of wilderness parks I'd left as leisure=park. If I'd had the itch to reclassify them, I'd 1) consult the current documentation 2) try to get a local consensus from other mappers -- especially the ones who'd done the original tagging, if still active. That's how a cooperative project like this should work. (Obviously it's different when the tagging's clearly incorrect -- if these had been tagged as zoos, for instance.)
convissor (2025-10-09 17:18:05+00:00): 1) "Preserve" is in the name of the facility, as does Rockefeller.
2) Cranberry users have to "stay on designated hiking trails" (https://parks.westchestergov.com/cranberry-lake). There are signs to that effect in Rockefeller too.
3) Cranberry's web page specifically says it is "Cranberry Lake Preserve is a designated Biodiversity Reserve Area."

Therefore, these are preserves, not parks.
matthewfecica (2025-10-09 19:01:26+00:00): @ZLima12, but features can indicate amenities, good gathering place...etc. It is stuff like baseball fields, type of land cover (woods, field, marsh...etc), benches, lakes, that can tell a lot more information. 

@jmapb, and in many of the parks throughout the county, there is either missing data, or the trail data had been added 6+ years ago and never updated. A good example is Juhring Preserve. If you were to compare my data with what was previously there, the two are completely different. There had been several major reroutes and no one had bothered to check the existing data. From what I had seen over the past few months, there hasn't really been anyone active in checking the field data. 

When it comes to OSM, I don't care much about the urban areas and stuff, and I'm not going to jump in and tell others how they should tag stuff. My focus is on the hiking trails and parks, and if anyone else would like to step up and collect field data, you are more than welcome to help out. As a case in point, within the past 2 months I have collected GPS data for close to 50 trail miles (not including the back and forths trying to cover each trail in a park), and this is in Westchester alone.
ZLima12 (2025-10-09 19:33:56+00:00): Yes, the tags of the features inside of a park/preserve are important. But think about it from the perspective of someone from out of town who is searching the map for a place to go. If they want to look for a good place to hike and see nature, they wouldn't want a more managed park to come up in their search. Similarly, if they were looking for a park for more general recreation, they probably wouldn't want a nature preserve that is meant for hiking to come up.

I very much appreciate the work that you have been doing for the trails in the region. But working on tagging is something that can and should happen concurrently with collection of new data, especially when there is a dispute.
matthewfecica (2025-10-09 19:44:48+00:00): @Zlima12, a lot can be learned just by looking at the ground cover. For example Central Park has lots of fields, sports fields, tennis courts, gardens, monuments...etc. While lets say Harriman for example, even if I had never been there, looking at the map I would see that there are a lot of forest cover, mountains, lakes, woods roads. Regardless of park or nature preserve, if you see sports fields, tennis courts, fountains, monuments...etc, you can automatically tell it is a developed park. While if you see lot of hiking trails, and forest cover, it is safe to assume it is for hiking.

Suppose you did not know what Cranberry Lake was, just by looking at the features within the boundary you would be able to know a lot of information about what is in there.
matthewfecica (2025-10-09 19:46:40+00:00): And since everyone is all of a sudden interested in field data, we need someone to go and collect the rest of the GPS track for this trail and find out where it goes. The Note has been open for more than a month:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4934897#map=15/41.20891/-73.61812&layers=N
stevea (2025-10-09 20:42:42+00:00): I've been wrangling these semantics in OSM for literally decades.

There is a possible solution to address most (or perhaps even everybody's) concerns in this case.  The entirety of the property, as a "protected area" (in each of the 50 states, federal law and even OSM semantics there is such a thing, replete with databases, law and much geo data) is correctly tagged leisure=nature_reserve.  That's simply a legal fact.

That some wish to see leisure=park tagging on at least some of the areas / facilities of this area CAN be accommodated with what is often called the "front of park / back of park" concept:  those areas which are "front of park" that contain things like parking lots, amenities such as restrooms, picnic tables, sport fields / facilities, etc. CAN be tagged as a (subset of the area) leisure=park.  The "back of park" areas are NOT so tagged, and remain tagged "simply" as a leisure=nature_reserve.

This isn't always perfect, but it is a compromise solution that often works.
ZeLonewolf (2025-10-09 20:56:19+00:00): I agree with Steve's take. The wild and wooded parts cannot be leisure=park, only the manicured bits. That's a well-established US convention.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands
stevea (2025-10-09 21:13:27+00:00): Yes, it was Kevin Kenny (ke9tv), another Mapper of the Month, who helped to both coin the "front of park / back of park" concept (using leisure=park ONLY on the "manicured" segments of larger boundary=protected_area polygons) but also the word "manicured" and the phrase "human sculpted landscape."

A natural preserve (leisure=nature_preserve or boundary=protected_area) simply is not a "park" (even as that word is blurred in US English with the OSM tagging of leisure=park).  ALTHOUGH, it may contain small (front-of-park) subset areas within it which could be rightly tagged with leisure=park.

The US has been chewing on these topics for many, many years, and Brian, Kevin, I and many others have contributed to the understanding that the "front-of park / back-of-park" concept is quite workable.  It may not be perfect, but I'll take "workable" any day of the week.  It has truly improved things to the point where these "tempests in a teapot" are only on a low simmer, rather than boiling over.

Good luck on the specifics of where the leisure=park SUBset(s) are in this (correctly tagged) leisure=nature_reserve.  Sometimes they include sinuous access road squiggly polygons, sometimes not and sometimes include "islands" that are not obvious how you get to them, but these are geographic data describing "where" (not always "how").  And as leisure=nature_reserve does render the boundary edge, "you get that, too."

If you really wanted a more complete more "pretty looking" map (in Carto, say), you could carefully add natural tags (like wood or grassland) where appropriate.  All together, to seasoned visual parsers of these rendered taggings, you'll "see what's really there," not as the fill colors you seem to want to see with an (incorrect) leisure=park tag on the whole polygon.
ZLima12 (2025-10-09 21:19:19+00:00): I support the hybrid tagging approach, at least in cases where there really is a "front of park" section. Here is an example of a nearby park where I used this scheme: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302389330

In that case there is definitely a leisure=park there, though the location in this changeset is more borderline. Some of the other locations in questions have no amenities at all except for perhaps a small dirt parking lot, so in those cases I would say there shouldn't be a leisure=park subarea.
stevea (2025-10-09 21:43:57+00:00): And let's not forget:  some areas might have a dirt parking space and maybe a bbq grill and a picnic table, that doesn't always really rise to the level of a park.  It's a grill in a boundary=protected_area.

It's a big world.
ZLima12 (2025-10-14 23:10:39+00:00): Well, it seems like the general consensus is that wooded preserves should get leisure=nature_reserve instead of leisure=park, so I will go ahead and make the change. I won't touch borderline cases for now though.
matthewfecica (2025-10-14 23:12:32+00:00): Please don't touch it
stevea (2025-10-14 23:21:24+00:00): Mmmm, it isn't "wooded" preserves that make for a correctly-tagged leisure=nature_preserve.  The "landcover" could be woods, swampy or even desert (say certain kinds of sagebrush and a species of roadrunner is part of what is being "preserved").

It is the function of both "protecting natural biology" AND that humans are allowed (usually to do very low-impact activities, like read signs, observe with binoculars, hike only if strictly staying upon trails...) which makes the unique "dual-use" aspects of a leisure=nature_reserve.  Yes, the natural biology is "preserved" here, yet humans might also recreate (leisure), but only if low-impact.

Semantics like "wood" are best left to natural=* tags.  We express TWO DIFFERENT semantics with tagging both leisure=nature_reserve AND natural=wood, for example.  The former does NOT imply the latter...that's why it's appropriate to use two tags to tag the two meanings.
ZLima12 (2025-10-14 23:24:58+00:00): Sure, I suppose I could have said spaces left in a natural state. In the region here though, that is usually wooded.
stevea (2025-10-15 00:44:56+00:00): Please, be very careful with "usually" (especially "usually wooded").  It's a very slippery slope (semantically); it's very easy to make assumptions and slip / fall down.

The wider practice that seems to be working is to "break apart" a dual-tagged (or assumed to be "both" wooded BECAUSE it is a "natural state" thing — around here — single-tagged thing) to TWO polygons.  One for the, say, leisure=nature_reserve, one for the natural=wood which may sort of and sort of not be landcover in the area.  You do need two polygons because you can't assume that "one means the other."  (Around here).  It doesn't.  That assumption must die, or we'll continue to have misunderstandings like this.

So, really, there are THREE things here that might be tagged separately:  the leisure=nature_reserve (which draws a boundary) the landcover (maybe wooded here, swampy there, grassland in patches here and there...) AND maybe there is a "front of park" area which could be subsetted with a small polygon tagged leisure=park.

Is everybody happy now?!  We can do this!
ZeLonewolf (2025-10-15 01:34:39+00:00): Yes, please make the changes. Tag leisure=nature_reserve on the outer boundary, tag natural=wood polygons where the trees/natural areas are (whether inside or outside the boundary), and reduce leisure=park to just the manicured bits.
stevea (2025-10-15 01:38:01+00:00): To @ZeLonewolf 's comments above: 👍
ZLima12 (2025-10-15 01:46:25+00:00): I've changed the leisure value on the outer boundaries, though we could use some natural=wood polygons. I haven't touched the places where a leisure=park subarea is necessary, yet.
ZeLonewolf (2025-10-15 02:01:54+00:00): I've just added the wood multipolygon.  Go team!
stevea (2025-10-15 02:07:25+00:00): Y'know, maybe my eyes are trained to see Carto rendering with these three SEPARATE things (leisure=nature_reserve as boundary, natural=wood where they are, leisure=park if/as such manicured areas / "human sculpted land") exist, and maybe other eyeballs of other OSM contributors, less so.

But, I'm beginning to see these things evolve as Carto is rendering them and as @ZLima12 makes the changes.  While we are maybe in "later innings" of this "go team" effort, meaning we are not quite yet done, we certainly are now around TWO thumbs up at our shared progress.

Lookin' good, even if not (quite) yet done!
gs3§zba (2025-11-10 09:16:17+00:00): Hallo Karthoo,
zerlegst du lauter Routenrelationen in stückweise viele Einzelrelationen? Warum?
Karthoo (2025-11-11 17:24:50+00:00): Hallo,

Die meisten touristischen Themen-Radrouten verlaufen vollständig auf dem Basisnetz und werden lediglich mit ihren Routensymbolen an die Wegweiserschilder angehängt. An den Zwischenwegweisern entlang der Strecke zwischen den Knotenpunkt-Wegweisern ist normalerweise kein Hinweis auf die Themen-Routen zu finden. Dementsprechend besteht eine Themen-Route technisch gesehen aus den Wegweisern und den Basisnetz-Routen zu den nächsten Wegweisern - daher habe ich begonnen einige Themen-Routen, die ich aktualisiere, auch in OSM so als Superroute zu erfassen. 

Das hat z.B. den großen Vorteil, dass an einem Weg, wo 5 Themen-Routen den selben Verlauf haben, nicht 5 Routen, sondern nur eine an den Weg drangehängt werden. Gerade wenn z.B. ein neuer Radweg gebaut wurde oder eine Kreuzung detaillierter gemappt wurde, muss man so nicht 5 Routen anpassen, sondern nur eine - die Basisroute - und die Themen-Routen werden automatisch mit angepasst.

Grüße

Karthoo
gs3§zba (2025-11-11 18:06:48+00:00): Verstehe. Das habe ich mir schon gedacht.
Damit erzeugst du jede Menge Mini-Relationen, die teilweise nur einen einzigen Weg enthalten. Ob ich nun einen Weg mehreren Routen-Relationen zuweise oder diese Mini-Relation, das ist ziemlich egal.
Jedenfalls widerspricht dein Ansatz dem Wiki, denn danach sind sehr lange Routen auf verschiedene Relationen aufzuteilen, um diese besser handhaben zu können, nicht aber diese extreme Fragmentierung.
Mein Problem ist, dass sich so eine stark fragmentierte Routen-Relation mit JOSM nicht mehr pflegen lässt. Darauf bin ich bei der Radroute Burgenstraße gestoßen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19816331). Der Kreisel mit Wegelement https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1429758660 ist eine Katastrophe.
Auch die Darstellung der Route im Standard-Renderer, siehe oben, oder in JOSM funktioniert nicht mehr.
Das hat dann auch Auswirkungen auf die Darstellung in waymarkedtrails.org (https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=19816331&type=relation&map=11.0/49.2537/9.3502) oder den Download von GPX-Dateien in der OSMAND-App.
Es tut mir leid um dein Arbeit, aber ich muss dich wirklich bitten, das alles rückgängig zu machen. Auch bei allen anderen Routen, die du so bearbeitet hast.
woodpeck (2026-03-03 22:25:54+00:00): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/aufsplitten-von-radrouten-in-teilstucke/142010 damit auch andere was dazu sagen können ;)
felipeeugenio (2025-09-14 16:51:57+00:00): Note	Contributor	Tmstmp UTC	Action	Comment
4961674 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961681 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961675 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961682 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961676 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961683 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961677 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961684 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961678 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961685 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961679 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961686 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
4961680 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:42	closed	ok..
felipeeugenio (2025-09-14 16:55:36+00:00): Note	Contributor	Tmstmp UTC	Action	Comment
4961687 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:53	closed	ok
4961688 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:53	closed	ok
4961689 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-09-14 18:53	closed	ok
Jordi MF (2025-09-14 21:15:53+00:00): Revierto este changeset por eliminar información recogida ente la gente local.
Jordi MF (2025-09-14 21:39:26+00:00): Además, no es cierto la página web https://www.retocima.es/cas15.htm afirme que este punto se llame "Coll de Santa Águeda". Sencillamente es una descripción de una subida ciclista que llega a un punto cercano a la Ermita de Santa Àgueda. No se trata, de hecho, ni de este mismo punto.
kapazao (2025-09-20 13:29:29+00:00): Hola, por favor no edites los bosques de esta manera, ya que es excesivo y complejo el número de bosques y geometrías que generas.
Fíjate en otros bosques cercanos y simplemente cubre el perímetro de bosque correctamente pero sin necesidad de dejar cada espacio mínimo que haya en el interior, ya que sigue siendo bosque, simplemente con menos densidad. Lo que claramente no lo sea lo etiquetas como otro polígono unido al bosque con su etiquetado correcto.
Es que así se hace insostenible y demasiado complejo, a parte de que pierdes un tiempo excesivo e innecesario.
Un saludo
kapazao (2025-09-20 13:31:46+00:00): Y se me pasó decir que nunca unas áreas a vías. En este caso los bosques a senderos, caminos, etc. Ya que no tiene ninguna relación el bosque con estos y además crea el problema que complica la edición y cuando cualquiera de esas vías se toca se modifica el bosque innecesariamente.
Un saludo
Like_cabezon (2025-09-24 17:14:22+00:00): Perfecto, en unos días empiezo a arreglar los cambios.
SpinOff (2025-09-23 21:04:12+00:00): Buszowałem ostatnio po wiki, żeby zrozumieć różnicę między man_made=tower i man_made=mast. To jest śliski temat, ale głównym kryterium zdaje się być to, czy konstrukcja oferuje platformy i czy da się na nią wspiąć inaczej niż przez techniczną drabinkę.

W tym changesecie zmieniłeś typ jednego z masztów: na tower: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10284623559

Na orto widać że jest to prosty słup, czyli zgodnie z wiki - man_made=mast.
TranslatorPS (2025-09-23 22:02:56+00:00): Tak, zorientowałem się po chwili, że mast będzie tutaj bardziej poprawne i mniej więcej od tutejszego właśnie changesetu zacząłem już stosować mast. Daje to kilkadziesiąt masztów do poprawki z poprzednich zestawów zmian, do czego być może kiedyś usiądę :)
SpinOff (2025-09-23 22:07:55+00:00): Dzięki :)
Gregory Peony (2025-09-14 19:05:39+00:00): Hi, in a couple of places you created shared nodes between buildings that share nodes: hold alt to prevent the creation of shared nodes.

Please do not connect the corners of buildings to other buildings or features such as highways or residential areas. In the iD Editor, hold down the `Alt` key to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing data and accidentally creating shared(grey) nodes. This [video about connected nodes](https://youtu.be/ltn1VOiq5_0) has more information and a guide.

Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
Gregory Peony (2025-09-14 19:20:36+00:00): Resolved by https://osmcha.org/changesets/171933411
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171930102
mcliquid (2025-09-14 18:29:38+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
neviksasha (2025-11-10 16:10:00+00:00): Доброго дня!

Певний час тому було внесено зміни у правила найменування вулиць.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Uk:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B8

прошу не змінювати порядок слів у назві
Andrii Fediakov (2025-11-14 08:17:20+00:00): Прийнято до уваги
eggie (2025-09-14 18:22:33+00:00): Dag Karel.. Heb je nu wel gekeken wat er al forward en backward was getagd?
Nu lijkt het me niet consistent.

Mvg
eggie
eggie (2025-09-14 18:23:42+00:00): mofa:forward	yes
moped:forward	yes
motor_vehicle	destination
motor_vehicle:forward	destination
motorcycle:forward	destination
Karel973 (2025-09-14 18:50:56+00:00): Er staat een C12 bord aan het begin en eind van de weg. Dit bord geeft aan dat het niet toegestaan is om hier in te rijden met auto, vrachtwagen, motor of bromfiets. 
Fietsen mag wel.