piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
BenutzerXYXY (2025-11-12 21:40:06+00:00): Hi,
danke für die Nachricht. So richtig glücklich ist das in der Tat nicht. Es handelt sich um „Ortsteilgruppen“. Mehrere benachbarte Ortsteile werden landläufig unter einem Begriff zusammengefasst. In den Relationen (außer Scheuren) gibt es dazu auch Wikipedia-Links. Ich war mir nicht sicher, welchen Haupt-Tag man da vergeben soll, da sie ja keinen wirklichen eigenständigen benannten Ortsteil oder ähnliches bilden.

Gruß
BenutzerXYXY (2025-11-13 13:09:26+00:00): Ich habe nun eine Nacht drüber geschlafen und nochmal drüber nachgedacht. Wahrscheinlich könnte man place=locality als Haupt-Tag verwenden, oder?
limes11 (2025-11-13 19:03:45+00:00): Sind Mertener Höhe und Eitorfer Schweiz nicht ganze Landschaftszüge, die dieser Siedlungen beeinhalten ? Jedenfalls suggerieren dies Name und Infos aus dem Netz. 

"Scheuren" würde ich einfach entfernen, eine Sammelbezeichnung aus dem 19. Jhd für die beiden Ortsteile. Historisch, mehr nicht
BenutzerXYXY (2025-11-13 19:55:57+00:00): Grundsätzlich sind das schon Landschaftszüge. Da diese Landschaftszüge keine richtigen Grenzen haben, sind sie m. E. schwer kartierbar. Ich wollte keine Fläche einzeichnen, da das ja sonst feste Grenzen suggeriert. Ich vermute mal, dass der Nutscheid aus ähnlichen Gründen nicht eingezeichnet ist, eben weil man sich sonst um Grenzen streitet. Daher fand ich den Ansatz von Wikipedia, die Definition über die Ortsteile, recht elegant.

Wie könnte man denn sonst mit so etwas verfahren? Für Gebirge gibt es ja natural=mountain_range, um den Namen zumindest irgendwie zu hinterlegen, wenngleich auch nur an einem Punkt. Theoretisch könnte man einen Node grob in die Flächenmitte setzen und mit place=locality taggen, wenngleich dieser Tag ja hauptsächlich für kleinere und schlechter umrissene Gebiete verwendet wird (z. B. Flurnamen).

An Scheuren hänge ich nicht. Gibt man Scheuren bei Wikipedia ein, wird man zwar immer noch auf Ober- und Niederscheuren weitergeleitet, aber so wichtig ist mir das nicht. Ich weiß auch nicht, wie aktuell das Ganze ist.
BenutzerXYXY (2025-11-20 20:01:03+00:00): Ich habe mich nun für place=locality entschieden und die Mertener Höhe und die Eitorfer Schweiz entsprechend eingetragen (jeweils ein Node etwa in der Flächenmitte). Scheuren ist ersatzlos gelöscht. Den Nutscheid habe ich als natural=mountain_range (Ein Node etwa in der Flächenmitte) eingetragen. Das halte ich für eine hoffentlich zufriedenstellende Lösung.
NeisBot (2025-11-12 20:39:41+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisBot (2025-11-12 20:39:41+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Art gallery and custom framing service"
NeisReview (2025-11-18 14:10:57+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/174818186
bungee558 (2025-11-13 05:10:09+00:00): Better change set comment: corrected addresses of building, specified coffee shop cuisine and internet access
IsStatenIsland (2025-11-12 23:21:17+00:00): You attached the historic=memorial to the subway tracks. I moved it to Arden Street.

Seems like attaching nodes to the wrong way is a very common pitfall in iD.
NeisBot (2025-11-12 20:54:42+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Ladue Medical Spa in St Louis"
NeisBot (2025-11-12 20:54:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-11-18 14:10:18+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/174818164
ceirios (2025-11-26 23:39:13+00:00): Hi Jonny,

Why have you removed 'Derry' from the names here? The slash naming here is intentional and really shouldn't be changed without consulting the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry/Londonderry_name_dispute

Regards,
Ceirios
JonnyW03 (2025-11-27 13:39:11+00:00): Thanks, there was an issue with somebody tampering on my account, so this is definitely one to reverse.
ceirios (2025-11-27 18:56:51+00:00): Alright, just remember your account is your responsibility!
NeisBot (2025-11-12 20:57:42+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Boutique clothing store in Andalusia"
NeisBot (2025-11-12 20:57:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-11-18 14:09:50+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/174818149
Comino (2025-11-12 22:54:25+00:00): Hi,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#tagging-guidance
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Happy mapping,

Edwin Comino
https://btcmap.org/tagger/6794624
NeisBot (2025-11-12 21:00:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisBot (2025-11-12 21:00:42+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Flooring store in Bastrop TX"
NeisReview (2025-11-18 14:09:33+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/174818136
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-21 04:31:46+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Cleaned up SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186094960
Comino (2025-11-12 21:30:26+00:00): Try to be consistent in the names you use. Don't use “Loafers Bread Company” one time and “Loafers Bread” the next.
Also add a website, there you will also find up-to-date data like opening hours and phone numbers.

https://loafersbread.com/loafers-bread-company/

It's not about speed, but quality.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-03 16:39:49+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178050914
Alex0708 (2026-02-03 17:26:37+00:00): Can you please give me an example of where a polygon is not closed? There are some lines that actually look like open polygons—but they are lines because they are interrupted by a physical object that is not recorded in OSM.
I'll be happy to check this again, though.

Best, Alex
Comino (2025-11-12 21:29:14+00:00): Try to be consistent in the names you use. Don't use “Loafers Bread Company” one time and “Loafers Bread” the next. Also add a website, there you will also find up-to-date data like opening hours and phone numbers.

https://loafersbread.com/loafers-bread-company/

It's not about speed, but quality.
perpetual nomad (2025-11-13 08:11:29+00:00): Thank you for your comment. I completely agree agree with adding consistent and accurate information..

In this case, I copied the name of the issue. I will keep this in mind going forward.
tomhukins (2025-12-03 11:31:03+00:00): Two of the ways you created are tagged as "intermittent=yes": https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1450117343 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/760195916

This seems confusing as they have no other tags.  What is intermittent about them?
matty817 (2025-12-03 12:05:56+00:00): The "intermittent=yes" originates from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173961876. (I split a way here, and the new one inherited the existing tagging). I also could not make sense of it, but I didn't like to remove it in case it was somehow meaningful.
tomhukins (2025-12-03 14:04:21+00:00): Thank you, that makes sense.  I didn't check as thoroughly as I might have.

I have left a comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173961876 to try to understand why these tags exist: it seems worth checking instead of leaving the tags in place just in case they make sense.
matty817 (2025-12-04 09:07:36+00:00): Thanks!
tomhukins (2025-12-04 18:05:32+00:00): The tags were added by mistake and have since been fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175477758 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175510217.
TrickyFoxy (2025-12-02 00:27:46+00:00): 👋 Вы добавили контакты ручью :) Куда вы их хотели добавить?
JeroenHoek (2025-11-13 09:08:11+00:00): Vergeet de sloot ook niet te onderbreken daar. Nu heb je een way die dwars door het water gaat, maar er is daar nu een duiker.
eggie (2025-11-13 09:20:35+00:00): De oprit heb ik wel teruggezet.
MVG
eggie
Glassman (2025-11-13 18:27:59+00:00): From Bing imagery, it appears that the device is in the middle of the road. There is a pole shadow nearby.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174578661
Joseph R P (2025-11-17 00:08:19+00:00): I would probably avoid mapping proposed highways like this one, especially since a full freeway here is likely at least a decade down the road. highway=proposed can be useful for mapping out roads that are to be built in the near future so they can be quickly changed to highway=construction, but one like this where the ROW still needs to be acquired and the actual construction is so far into the future where anything could happen (the routing could be altered, it could be downgraded to an arterial rather than a freeway, or could not happen at all, etc.) is effectively just some more clutter in the editor that makes it a little more difficult to edit around it, especially since these ways cross many other roads and unmapped features like houses. Generally, the less ways the don't render on the map (abandoned, demolished, proposed, etc.), the better.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-11-17 01:56:54+00:00): There was an already-existing highway=proposed alignment of Sheep Mountain Pkwy that, for the most part, seems to parallel the alignment I found in the "Kyle Canyon Map" PDF. I mean, to be fair, parts of that original alignment that you added have been built (mostly along Shaumber Road), so I guess that part can remain. Would it be helpful, perhaps, revert this specific edit and, if the expressway/freeway plans ever come to fruition, revert that revert?
Joseph R P (2025-11-17 15:07:45+00:00): I would say that all proposed highway ways should probably be deleted unless we know those roads are going to be built and their eminent construction is within a more reasonable timeframe where plans are less likely to change. The OSM Wiki even seems to hint at discouraging mapping proposed highways that truly are only in the proposal phase: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dproposed

I personally have been going around deleting some of the ones I originally mapped myself, just because the data doesn't render and isn't used by anyone because it's not really mapping what's on the ground and can only be used as a sort of note as pre-mapping for upcoming construction in the near future.

Considering we don't have an actual date for construction of a freeway (if that even happens), I wouldn't worry about retaining or restoring anything here. If we consider how long it took for the Beltway to be built, or for how long it will take to get to building the 395 spur in Reno, we're talking about a project that, if confirmed, is likely so far into the future that there's a chance either one of us may not be interested in editing OSM anymore by the time the first shovel hits the dirt.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-11-18 01:23:38+00:00): Okay, that's fair enough. Interestingly, proposed highways 𝘥𝘰 get rendered on the German Carto style. Out of the highway=proposed ways in the Valley, which ones are likely to be built in the near(est) future? I could load an Overpass Turbo query for all the proposed highways in the Valley and delete them.
Joseph R P (2025-11-20 22:52:38+00:00): Off the top of my head, I'm not sure which exact ones would be built soonest, other than some residential streets in multi-phase subdivision projects, or any other major road we know is scheduled to be built (like the Hollywood Blvd extension for example). 

I wouldn't necessarily go out of my way and make a mass-deletion of them since in reality most of them aren't truly problematic more than they are sometimes annoying and inconvenient if they overlap with or are attached to a bunch of other features—but I also wouldn't discourage going about deleting them either. I would just suggest not mass-deleting them in the event there are some that are out there that are useful to keep (like I had mentioned in my above comment), but instead delete ones you find are in the way of what you're doing or any blatantly false ones you stumble across in ID. This strategy would probably be less time consuming and/or prone to breaking something than identifying which exact ones to keep out of the hundreds or so that exist in this area and deleting the identified ones in one changeset. Ultimately, it's probably not worth prioritizing because this object only renders in very select map styles and the data isn't ever used elsewhere (as far as I know).

The simplest solution, though, and the rule of thumb I go by now, would be to just not map proposed roads that aren't 100% confirmed or construction takes place in an unreasonably late date to even think about it in the present, and rather use it as a sort of scaffolding for mapping new road that do get built soon so you can quickly change them with the construction and get the data out there as soon as possible rather than have to take time and start fresh after construction has already started.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-02-09 17:56:35+00:00): Okay. When you said, "highway=proposed can quickly be changed to highway=construction once construction actually starts," I think I see what you mean now. Back in Summerlin West, I mapped some portions of Alta Drive, Park Drift Trail, and Grand Park Boulevard as highway=proposed based on a community map of the area. Then, once I saw some construction work being done on what appears to be a very close alignment for what I put as highway=proposed, I changed them to highway=construction. Is this what you meant by that?
Joseph R P (2026-02-09 21:03:04+00:00): That is correct. Though not always necessary since they can get in the way of mapping other things in some cases, using proposed features for pre-mapping construction is useful since you or can map everything in one go and then you (or even other editors who now have more context for what's going on because of the pre-construction mapping) can simply re-tag the features to under-construction as real life construction progresses.
Anas masuris (2025-11-14 10:15:35+00:00): Kolejny raz nie podajesz źródeł w edycji, niekiedy pomijając wskaźniki W27a, które znajdują się w terenie.

Obowiązkiem jest podawanie źródeł plus aktualizacja wartości na wskaźnikach, jeśli takowe w danym miejscu się znajdują
Hufkratzer (2025-11-15 09:40:50+00:00): Hi,
you removed the building tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/646104497 although it is a building (see https://www.seabrookisland.com/club-life/equestrian/). Tag leisure=horse_riding is not appropriate for small buildings, it is for complete ridnig centers. In this case the riding center is tagged as a sports center: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1125527582. It should not be mapped twice.
b-jazz (2025-11-21 17:03:37+00:00): Hey there njberks. Thanks for contributing to golf course mapping on OSM. We appreciate all the help we can get.

However, there is a problem with the change you're making here. You are adding fairway tags where they shouldn't be added.

I've tried to explain it in detail with some graphics to help make it clear. Can you take a look at this and let me know if it makes sense:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID_understanding_golf_course_relations

Thanks!
njberks (2025-11-21 17:53:07+00:00): So fairways should be line type and the relations should outline it as a fairway.
I am new to this and was just duplicating what I had seen on previous layouts done by others,  not knowing that they were incorrect.
b-jazz (2025-11-21 18:01:38+00:00): A fairway that is nothing else but fairway, should have feature type set to "Fairway". But if there is anything wholly contained inside (green, tee, bunker, etc), then it should be a multipolygon. 

If you are creating it from scratch, you would draw the fairway, label it as fairway, draw the bunker/green/whatever, and label it as normal. But then you'd select both (or all) of those objects and merge or combine them (I can't remember what iD, the default editor, calls it). That will do the right thing with creating the multipolygon and merge the tags as appropriate.

But if you are editing existing objects, just make sure and look to see if the fairway is already part of a relation. If you see it as a Line, there's a good chance it is part of a relation and correctly tagged. 

I've been doing the entire country over the last three years and I'm nearly done correcting that particular problem. If you see something and are confused, please feel free to reach out. Include URLs of the object in question and I'll look.

thanks!
njberks (2025-11-21 18:14:45+00:00): Thanks for your help,  but a little confused.
I tried without saving the edit to do what you say,  but when map out the line and click on add relation -  fairway option does not come up.  How to I correct that,  as there is another course I did that I want to go back and correct the errors.
b-jazz (2025-11-21 20:42:26+00:00): If you can point me at the course, I can probably clean it up faster than I can explain how to correct it. The important part is that you know how not to make the mistake in the future.
njberks (2025-11-21 21:35:51+00:00): esplanade golf ,  naples,  FL.  I think it has the errors on each hole that you informed me about. Sorry about making extra work for you.
b-jazz (2025-11-21 21:48:55+00:00): No worries. I just want to stop errors before they multiple. Cleaning up one or two now vs. dozens in the future is my goal.

I'll take a look at fixing these up later tonight or this weekend. thanks.
njberks (2025-11-22 00:38:25+00:00): I have tried to do as you requested as a test on another course,  but when I line the fairway around the green,  I never get "fairway" to come up on the relation.
Any list or tutorial on how to do this.
b-jazz (2025-11-22 01:05:35+00:00): I'm not sure I understand your starting point. Do you have a bare fairway and green, neither of which are part of a relation? That is where you should be starting. If the relation already exists, I'll have to learn how the iD editor can modify that.

So, let's assume you draw an area for the fairway and an area for the green. When you are done drawing the fairway area, set it's feature type to Fairway. Draw the area for the green and set the feature type to Putting Green. Then hold down shift and make sure the fairway and green are selected. Right click on either selected line and click the "+" icon to "Merge" the features into a multipolygon relation. That's all you need to do.
njberks (2025-11-22 06:30:33+00:00): thanks,  tried it and made the correction on 1 hole,  now I can do the rest.  Simple.
So no need for you to have to make the changes.
njberks (2025-11-22 07:23:03+00:00): So I did what you said and I think I did it correctly,  but the program that I use to convert (Chads tool)  did not pick up any of the fairways,  only  greens, water and bunkers.  See if I did it correctly on Esplanade Golf ,  Fla
b-jazz (2025-11-24 06:59:49+00:00): Ah yes, Chad's Tool.

The OSM community has had a lot of run-ins with people using Chad's Tool and wanting to break how OSM does mapping. Chad's Tool has a bug in that it doesn't support relations. There is a proposed fix that must be at least 6 months old now that looks like it might fix the problem, but the author hasn't built a new version with that fix yet. There is a pull request on github requesting the fix being incorporated. I've been encouraging people to add their voice to that fix so that it can get built as soon as possible.
Cookie Guru (2025-12-19 21:58:19+00:00): I had a chance to visit these segments a couple days ago.  The section next to the P-Patch is a nice, worn path which is tolerable on a bike.  The section between 101st and 100th is just bumpy grass with no clear path and not fun on a bike.  The two E-W segments touching Fremont are the same.  So I think only the one segment should be bikes=yes but I don't know what to tag the others.  All four should definitely be peds=yes.  What do you think?
lukobe (2025-12-19 22:22:09+00:00): Hmm, good question. I was thinking "discouraged" but that might not be quite right either... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#:~:text=Some%20mappers%20used%20this%20tag%20for%20safety%20reasons%20even%20when%20the%20access%20is%20legal
Comino (2025-11-12 22:55:26+00:00): Hi,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#tagging-guidance
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Happy mapping,

Edwin Comino
https://btcmap.org/tagger/6794624
tux67 (2025-11-13 08:25:25+00:00): Hallo Mandrake1973,
du hattest hier eine Sporthalle in einer Sporthalle gemappt. Das ist erstmal aktualisiert.
Wenn sich an der mir bekannten Nutzung nichts geändert hat, dann ist die Sporthalle eine ganz normale Mehrfachsporthalle in der u.a. die Raiders ihre Spiele/Traning haben. Korrekt?
Von daher wäre das aktualisierte Tagging zutreffender. Beim Namen gilt bei OSM https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Verwende_nicht_das_Name-Tag,_um_Dinge_zu_beschreiben - von daher ist "Home ..." eine Beschreibung - der Name des Clubs ist nur "Raiders".

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174580369
felipeeugenio (2025-11-13 11:19:23+00:00): Estimado. Esto es una base de datos que se usa en todo el mundo y usted acaba de borrar todos los nombres de la universidad para hacer una tarea. 
saludos