piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2026-07-27 07:08:11+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback.. Je info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
PizzaTreeIsland (2026-07-26 21:08:13+00:00): See previous comment

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186423424
Dimitar155 (2026-07-26 21:09:05+00:00): *коловози, не перони
eggie (2026-07-27 07:10:29+00:00): Info samengevoegd. Bij gebruik van organic mist vaak de plaatsnaam en een adresnode selecteren is niet ideaal.
BCNorwich (2026-07-27 04:42:40+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Address tweaked to OSM style.

Regards Bernard.
eggie (2026-07-27 07:15:51+00:00): Dag John,

Een (schuif)hek kun je het best op een node taggen. Dan werkt het in de routering.

MVG
eggie
eerib (2026-07-26 23:19:50+00:00): Hello PatGT,

The recent edits to the Neuralyzer trail and nearby trails have been reverted because they were identified as vandalism.

Neuralyzer is an unsanctioned trail that was purpose-built for mountain biking. As such, removing the mtb:scale:imba value is not appropriate. Your edits also removed references to the trail's intended use and difficulty rating from the description, and added a no access value despite there being no official signage or other authoritative basis to support that change.

In OpenStreetMap, a trail's difficulty rating is descriptive only. It does not imply that a trail is authorized, recommended, or appropriate for use; it simply records the trail's technical difficulty according to the relevant rating system.

I am aware that Strava recently updated its maps to display mtb:scale:imba and access tags, and that some members of your group have expressed concerns about this change. However, attempting to remove or alter valid trail attributes in OpenStreetMap, particularly while using a deceitful changeset comment, is not an appropriate way to address those concerns.

Additionally, this account is being used as a sockpuppet of the user Shinsplints. Please use your primary account for future contributions in accordance with OpenStreetMap's community expectations.

Kind regards, eerib
eerib (2026-07-26 23:32:56+00:00): For additional context, these edits are consistent with recent changesets by the user EricJMilannn12 (changesets 185118783 and 185306892), which similarly removed mtb:scale:imba values and added access=no tags to trails of a nearby trail network, specifically affecting trails associated with this group of individuals.

The relevant changesets are:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185118783

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185306892
PatGT (2026-07-27 14:57:30+00:00): Your accusations are unfounded. 

Get your facts straight.  

I hike this area often. When was the last dime you were there? 

According to osm wiki 



The Trail Difficulty Rating System shall be used for mountain bike trails which are specifically designed and designated for mountain biking, to be found in "Bikeparks", for example.
eerib (2026-07-28 01:28:40+00:00): Hello PatGT,

Thank you for pointing out the errors on the wiki. It appears that the community never approved the specific language used on the wiki page and that edits have been made without community consensus.

I have created a discussion topic on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum to document the errors and seek community consensus for proposed fixes.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-improvements-to-mtbimba-documentation/145838

Thank you again, eerib
PatGT (2026-07-29 21:05:39+00:00): 99% of the users in this area are not mountain bikers.  The trail connecting boulder creek to the bottle top connector is not ridable up or down. 

The trail you call under construction is a randomly flagged piece of forest. 

I don’t understand why you want to perpetuate misinformation. 

I read your forum discussion and don’t see how that applies to these trails. 

These are not mountain bike trails.
PatGT (2026-07-30 00:51:50+00:00): 
I had a friend read this to help me better understand your issue. I didn’t look at the ericmillan changesets because they have nothing to do with me. I am unfamiliar with that area. 

But if I am to understand, you think that if two different people make edits because they disagree with your reasoning for similar reasons that these two different people must be collaborating against you?  Have you considered that you may simply be wrong?
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-27 13:52:55+00:00): You deleted crosswalks that exist.  In Oklahoma, all sides of all intersections are crosswalks if there's not signage or railings indicating that the crosswalk is closed.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186425681
rajdhani (2026-07-27 11:47:55+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186452115
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-27 01:41:30+00:00): Unfortunately, this changeset caused a very serious set of conflicts with mine I was just about to upload, when you'd explicitly requested that I review and fix up your previous work here (pinging me multiple times on Slack over the past 24 hours, in fact).

In any case, while it partially corrects some of the issues from your previous changesets, it also repeats some of the exact same mistakes that I previously described and corrected for your changeset 186369306 when I reviewed it per your direct request, which you acknowledged on Slack that you would avoid repeating. This required me to once again do a partial revert of this changeset to recover the unnecessarily deleted content (making things even more complicated given your previously requested review and fixup).

https://osm.org/changeset/186369306

This includes:

- Inexplicably deleting and recreating all the existing service ways instead of just leaving or modifying the (correct) existing ones, which was the very first point I made on the previous changeset
- Likewise, deleting the existing parking lot (although in this case, I can't really fault you for that since the existing geometry was so malformed), and recreating it missing most of the original's tags
- Deleting and recreating (again) the school amenity ways instead of combining them or keeping one
- Node drags of boundary ways

Furthermore, as discussed at great length on Slack and mentioned on your previous changeset, the roadway hiearchy of the service ways does not resemble what we discussed.

Additionally, there are multiple disconnected highway ways (as iD warned you about), seemingly arbitrary service ways drawn around the northern track area, and the various amenities are still rather misshapen rather than neat circles or rectangles when appropriate (which is easy to do when right-clicking in iD).

After a long and tortuous merge conflict resolution process thanks to all of the spurious deletions here, I was able to clean up all the issues of this and your other changesets in my changeset 186429694

https://osm.org/changeset/186429694

I would strongly advise that you to either be prepared to take a lot more care and due diligence with your changesets, or focus for now on simpler changes (like adding tags to POIs, which you've been doing quite successfully!) that avoid touching complex geometry and tagging situations like these, until you've gained more enough experience to tackle them on your own.

Reviewing, commenting and cleaning up after another mapper takes a lot of time, energy and patience, none of which I can sustain indefinitely, so if this pattern continues I will have to expect you to take responsibility and fix basic mistakes yourself using the resources available to you (the same or better as I had when I started mapping), possibly with my help to revert your changesets for you to give you or others a clean slate.

Thanks, and happy mapping.
Yunan973 (2026-07-31 14:07:22+00:00): Salut,
j'ai un peu modifié tes modifications, notamment supprimé (désolé) un multipolygone qui n'en était pas un (et inutile et erroné, cf. les warnings dans les attributs de ce groupe de modifications).
Tu peux voir le résultat dans la description du bâtiment https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1545454427
Cordialement
FajrAl (2026-07-27 04:39:27+00:00): perubahan telah dipulihkan https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186434781

Harap tidak menggunakan label yang bukan standar Openstreetmap.
eteb3 (2026-07-28 18:36:51+00:00): this was in substance two edits, rolled together by accident. 1/ house numbering at St Mary's Court, Ely; 2/ updates to Masjid Salafi, Birmingham
eerib (2026-07-27 06:30:01+00:00): Thank you for re-adding the camp!

Looks like the deletions were done by user Mason Aldridge (a kid editing for Pokemon Go) in changeset #136366420 about 3 years ago.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1134165369/history

Unfortunately, I never caught the deletions otherwise I would have done a partial revert.

Thank you again, eerib
Fleezing (2026-07-27 07:24:04+00:00): I've only used tools for performing full reverts, which wasn't appropriate in that case (as tempting as it was). What option is there for managing partial reverts?
eerib (2026-07-27 15:30:39+00:00): The only way I know is to use the reverter plugin in JOSM, then select the specific features and use upload selection.

Not sure if this is the best way to do it but it's the way I've had success with.
eerib (2026-07-26 23:20:09+00:00): Discussion in

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186424970
rajdhani (2026-07-27 11:25:29+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186450800
AndresDuhour (2026-07-27 13:28:32+00:00): Buen día! te hago una consulta. Estoy corrigiendo algunos nombres de calle con abreviaturas, y por un lado quería saber el el nombre J. B. Martínez sería Juan Bautista, no encuentro datos en la municipalidad. Y por otro lado, si se llama igual del otro lado de Agustín Maza, porque de un lado se llama "Martínez" y del otro "J. B. Martínez", Saludos! Andrés
Pich14 (2026-07-27 14:24:32+00:00): Te soy sincero, tengo la misma duda 😂. En todos los carteles de la señalética de calles sale como "Martinez" o "J. B. Martinez". Se puede asimilar que es "Juan Bautista Martínez", pero y si no lo es? Yo creo que habría que esperar hasta que el municipio se digne a alguna vez poner el nombre completo en la menos UN cartel y ahí unificar el nombre en OSM. Porque hasta que no se sepa quién es/fué ese tal Martínez no se va a poder poner el nombre completo.
AndresDuhour (2026-07-27 14:38:27+00:00): ja! bueno gracias por responder. Ya lo vamos a descubrir. Yo busqué normativa, la página municpal, el sigide de la provincia y no encuentro nada!  Una cosa que podríamos ver es que quede con el mismo nombre en toda su extensión, para que no esté en un lado "Martínez" y en el otro "J.B.." si es la misma calle se podría hacer eso aunque quede toda con la abreviatura... qué te parece? Saludos! Andrés
JJIglesias (2026-07-27 20:59:09+00:00): Saludos.
Estas seguro q es esto lo que quieres agregar al mapa?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhunting_stand
Wildsharky (2026-07-29 07:04:25+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186564335
ajmat (2026-07-28 17:25:07+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186532281
Loopslol7 (2026-07-27 05:57:01+00:00): source: hta.org
FajrAl (2026-07-27 04:35:13+00:00): S&K Google melarang datanya dijadikan sebagai referensi. Dalam Openstreetmap sendiri sudah ada 3 citra satelit yang disediakan di editornya.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-27 19:44:18+00:00): +1 to @FajrAI's comments, of course--especially since you're a local resident.

It seems to me (from the allowed aerial views, of course) that there is in fact a road here, just not a highway=residential but rather a highway=service, and the remaining tagging is correct. Therefore, I would suggest restoring these ways and reclassifying them as highway=service instead. What do you think @FajrAI , should I go ahead with that?
FajrAl (2026-07-27 23:06:16+00:00): I've added it.

People here tend to assume that any satellite image is from Google Maps or Google Earth

@arcizy tidak semua citra satelit itu adalah Google Maps ya, coba dicari dulu ada berapa `citra satelit resolusi tinggi` yang digunakan dalam pemetaan
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-28 00:13:09+00:00): Thanks!

Hmm, I see. I assumed based on what they said they were merely mentioning that as corroboration rather than that being directly the source of the mapping, as they mentioned being a local resident, so I wasn't going to revert on that basis in any case.
arcizy (2026-07-28 00:26:47+00:00): Mau saya fotoin? Saya ojol maxim yg 3 kali sehari lewat sini. Yg saya hapus itu jalan kecil menuju sebuah gudang, kalau lah semua bangunan harus dibuat jalannya, maka akan banyak sekali jalan2 kecil yg harus dibuat.
FajrAl (2026-07-28 00:36:08+00:00): Jalan menuju sebuah gudang tersebut memiliki tag yang salah sebelumnya, seharusnya jalan itu bukan jalan permukiman, melainkan jadi jalan layanan (tag highway=service). Penambahan tag akses juga diperlukan agar aplikasi navigasi seperti ojol tidak bisa akses ke jalan itu; contoh: access=customer yang hanya bisa dilalui jika titik peta tujuan ada di sini.

Jalan layanan sering dipetakan sebagai jalan masuk pabrik, kantor pemerintah, sekolah, makam, dsb.

Untuk label / tag yang lain, bisa dibaca di sini https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Id:Pedoman_Penandaan_Indonesia
Jika ada pertanyaan, bisa diajukan ke Telegram Komunitas OpenStreetMap Indonesia
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-28 00:42:13+00:00): I think we believe you that you've personally verified it. The issue here as I mentioned was the change was deleting valid map data instead of simply correcting the tags. You are by no means "required" to map every small access way like this, but neither should you delete those that other map unless there is no physical way there at all. See:

https://osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Terjemahan mesin (saya yakin FajrAI mungkin bisa menyampaikannya dengan lebih baik):

Kami percaya bahwa Anda telah memverifikasinya secara pribadi. Masalahnya—seperti yang sudah saya sebutkan—adalah perubahan tersebut menghapus data peta yang valid, alih-alih sekadar memperbaiki *tag*-nya. Anda sama sekali tidak "diwajibkan" untuk memetakan setiap jalan akses kecil semacam ini, namun Anda juga sebaiknya tidak menghapus jalan yang telah dipetakan orang lain, kecuali jika memang tidak ada akses fisik sama sekali di lokasi tersebut. Lihat:

https://osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

(Tidak ada versi bahasa Indonesianya, tetapi Anda bisa menggunakan penerjemah otomatis.)
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-28 08:37:48+00:00): Unfortunately, you once again have more basic geometry issues here with your highway=service ways:

- You added a second service way (way 1544950577) where one already existed, and connected it to the sidewalk rather than another road, leaving it dangling and not useful
- You added a service=drive-through way (way 1544950576) that is completely disconnected at the beginning end leaving it not accessible, it is missing the one-way tagging of the existing way (which is even more important for a drive-through), and it goes well past where the drivethrough itself ends, while also incorrectly offsetting way 628497486 from its true centerline.
- way 1544950578 does not directly connect to (either) service way to its west, despite being a direct continuation of that way.
- Furthermore, that way provides through connectivity and has no parking stalls adjacent to it, thus as I already explained to you in detail on Slack several days ago, it is not a parking aisle. Likewise, the existing way 628497490 and especially way 628497483 were tagged as parking aisles, despite providing through connectivity and this leaving no non-parking aisle thru ways except, inexplicably, way 628497490 . If you do not understand when it is appropriate to use service=parking_aisle, you are better off not using it at all and leaving things correct as they are.
- Likewise, way 866851936 is tagged as a parking aisle, despite providing direct through connectivity out of the lot and leaving way way 866851935 as a stub.

I once again fixed all these issues for you, in changeset 186505087

https://osm.org/changeset/186505087
Supaplex (2026-07-27 02:47:16+00:00): 您好

你在加敝公司的過程中，動到兩條道路，兩間店家沾黏到道路。由於OpenStreetMap計畫並沒有圖層概念，所有的資料全部都會在畫面當中，如果只是加單一店家，請在小範圍之後去做變動。
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186430325
薇芳 曾 (2026-07-28 00:29:53+00:00): 您好，謝謝您的通知與耐心的說明，非常感謝您把沾黏與錯位的道路修正，之前操作時沒有注意到，造成困擾非常抱歉。
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-28 07:52:07+00:00): You added building tag with a lifecycle prefix, but then didn't replace the existing building=yes tag making that tag useless, and furthermore added a bunch of POI tags also without that lifecycle prefix. Furthermore, the lifecycle prefix you used is not correct--the description of destroyed:*=* is:

> Destroyed by an event other than intentional demolition

Since per your comment it was demolished, this tag is explicitly incorrect, and the correct one is demolished:*=* . See https://osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay

I fixed all this for you in changeset 186503098

https://osm.org/changeset/186503098
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-28 07:38:47+00:00): You added a building=* inside an existing building--the Mathnasium way was already tagged building:part=* for a reason, i.e. it is already part of an existing building=* (the outer way 1039750769 ).

If you aren't 100% sure you understand some existing tagging, most likely added by another mapper with more experience than you, you should either put in the effort to learn what the tag means and how to use it before making any changes, or simply don't touch it at all. 

Fixed in changeset 186502555

https://osm.org/changeset/186502555
alpacaMaps (2026-07-27 21:09:35+00:00): Restoring camera after discussion about lagoon watch. This is a legit camera!

- alpacaMaps
nerihv (2026-07-27 02:02:21+00:00): eliminé los dos polígonos añadidos hace dos días, porque forman parte de la misma construcción mapeada hace 5 años. Actualicé el contorno del mismo polígono
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-28 07:11:39+00:00): It seems you modified the building outline to follow the severely perspective-skewed roofline from Bing rather than following the actual footprint of the building, which is much closer approximated by the ESRI imagery (and the previous outline of the building).

Further, given this skewed building outline overlapped the road around the back, you added a spurious layer tag when more othorectified imagery clearly shows the building does not overlap the road (and a layer=* tag on buildings is generally incorrect in any case).

It is important to be alert for possible biases in your imagery, trace the building at ground level rather than the skewed roofline, and check all available high-quality imagery sources before making a significant change like this, especially when it results in an extremely suspicious overlap with a road that should raise major alarm bells that something is likely wrong.

I fixed both these issues, further refined the building geometry and split it into a second building at 1025 S Moorland in changeset 186501523

https://osm.org/changeset/186501523
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-28 08:47:00+00:00): The Quik Trip gas station is already tagged on way 1037022043 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1037022043 (although it should be either a node or an area covering the full fueling area under both canopys). Per the basic rule of OSM, 1 Feature, 1 OSM Element https://osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

I removed the duplicate tags and added it as a way around the overall fueling area in changeset 

https://osm.org/changeset/186505530
TheSwavu (2026-07-27 22:52:12+00:00): Hi,

Address components beyond street are optional. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Addresses Not putting them in cuts down on the number of errors that you might make. For example, these have the incorrect suburb name.

I have fixed these ones.

Happy mapping.
Klue17 (2026-07-27 23:59:47+00:00): No - i live here and these are all GUILDFORD.  what did you change them to?
Klue17 (2026-07-28 00:01:58+00:00): and what do you mean by "Address components beyond street are optional".  WHat did i include that you have objection to?
Klue17 (2026-07-28 00:12:57+00:00): Oh I see what you did - the other side of the street is technically merryands tho noone calls it such int he neighbourhood.  Thanks!
fortera_au (2026-07-28 01:02:04+00:00): OSM has suburbs, postcodes and states mapped in Australia, so you only need to put up to the street level on individual objects. The only exception is if an object is physically located within a different state, postcode or suburb to the address it uses.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186432017
Kushal_supertramp (2026-07-27 02:44:42+00:00): Removed route relation used for promotional purposes
ajmat (2026-07-28 11:21:31+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186513241
MappingMore (2026-07-28 08:27:01+00:00): Reverted in  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186504478
橘ヒカリ (2026-07-27 03:44:46+00:00): 房山东-良乡区间轨道基础设施整理完毕，可以开始完善副中心线的线路relation了。
Supaplex (2026-07-27 14:25:53+00:00): 請問為何要在既有道路上又重覆添加道路？
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186433730
FajrAl (2026-07-27 04:36:42+00:00): gunakan jalan layanan, bukan jalan permukiman
rajdhani (2026-07-30 08:59:56+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186631228
Loopslol7 (2026-07-27 05:56:49+00:00): source: national map topo, USGS elevation data, USGS aerial
WMietek (2026-07-27 06:00:11+00:00): Droga jest w remoncie tylko nie wiem jak długo. Jechałem 25.07.2026 i była całkiem rozkopana.
Jordi MF (2026-07-29 12:51:53+00:00): Este changeset ha sido revertido en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186582849 por no seguir los criterios de la comunidad española (osm.wiki/ES:Comunitat_Valenciana#Toponimia_de_la_Comunitat_Valenciana) y por tratarse de una multicuenta creada para evitar bloqueos de cuentas previas. Ver: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/
Jordi MF (2026-07-29 12:51:46+00:00): Este changeset ha sido revertido en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186582849 por no seguir los criterios de la comunidad española (osm.wiki/ES:Comunitat_Valenciana#Toponimia_de_la_Comunitat_Valenciana) y por tratarse de una multicuenta creada para evitar bloqueos de cuentas previas. Ver: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/
Wildsharky (2026-07-29 07:05:05+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186564457
Jordi MF (2026-07-29 12:51:38+00:00): Este changeset ha sido revertido en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186582849 por no seguir los criterios de la comunidad española (osm.wiki/ES:Comunitat_Valenciana#Toponimia_de_la_Comunitat_Valenciana) y por tratarse de una multicuenta creada para evitar bloqueos de cuentas previas. Ver: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/
rajdhani (2026-07-28 10:49:15+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186511737
Jordi MF (2026-07-29 12:51:28+00:00): Este changeset ha sido revertido en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186582849 por no seguir los criterios de la comunidad española (osm.wiki/ES:Comunitat_Valenciana#Toponimia_de_la_Comunitat_Valenciana) y por tratarse de una multicuenta creada para evitar bloqueos de cuentas previas. Ver: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/