piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2026-06-15 10:17:20+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Communit
skatsubo (2026-06-14 16:02:45+00:00): О закрытии одного магазина из двух на сайте Наша Талачыншчына:
"С 1 июля [2025 года] в населенных пунктах Серковицы, <...> закрыты магазины, принадлежащие Сенненскому филиалу Витебского облпотребсоюза. <...> В Серковицах и Горщевщине имеются магазины «Золотой колос» УП «Толочинский Элеватор-Агро»" 
Источник: https://www.natal.by/news/trading/torgovlya-na-sele-v-tolochinskom-rayone-problemy-i-ikh-reshenie/
MarcoR (2026-06-14 07:18:27+00:00): Ciao e benvenuti su OpenStreetMap!

Il campo di volo ha davvero questa nuova doppia denominazione o si tratta di un errore? A cosa si riferisce Giovyx?

Buon mapping,
Marco
ivanbranco (2026-06-17 17:04:50+00:00): Ho ripristinato la situazione precedente non trovando fonti sul nome e vista la mancata risposta. Ovviamente se è un nome reale si può sempre ri-aggiungere, buon mapping
robrobgermany (2026-06-12 21:18:32+00:00): Dauerhaft geschlossen.
felipeeugenio (2026-06-12 22:19:54+00:00): Reversado
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184032798
Sébastien Pi (2026-07-02 18:05:08+00:00): Bonjour,

Merci pour avoir ajotué les start_date dans le quartier. Par contre, la syntaxte est ~1234 et non 1234~ :).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:start_date
Je vais les corriger.
Arflha (2026-07-03 06:45:01+00:00): Salut,
Sur la traduction française, à la section Approximations il manque le bandeau d'avertissement sur la validité de cette section qui est effectivement un machin organique qui est apparu au fil du temps et ne s'appuie sur aucune documentation ou format connu et n'a jamais été le fruit d'un consensus. "1234~" ce format ci est l'ISO 8601-02, il s'agit de l'extension du format ISO 8601-01 que l'on utilise déjà sur OSM pour les dates exactes (YYYY-MM-DD).

En l'absence de règle sur ce point, il n'y a pas de soucis à utiliser ce format cependant à la fin du mois de juillet je dois lancer une discussion autour du choix de l'ISO 8601-02 comme norme pour le projet pour remplacer le format litigieux.
Sébastien Pi (2026-07-03 07:25:26+00:00): Bonjour,

La norme que vous citez date de 2019 (apparemment, je ne suis pas expert là-dessus !) https://www.iso.org/fr/standard/70908.html. Donc sûrement bien après les 1res apparitions.

Oui, il manque le bandeau en français. Mais non, aucune référence à un « 1234~ » que ce soit en français, anglais ou dans la page de discussion : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:start_date#Approximation. Et je ne suis pas d’accord avec « aucune documentation », c’est quand même écrit dans le wiki. Et si on veut faciliter la réutilisation et garder une base uniforme, il vaut mieux le suivre ou… effectivement faire évoluer les pratiques.

Donc effectivement comme vous le dites, il est intéressant de lancer une discussion sur ce point. Et pourquoi pas rajouter une référence à cette norme ISO au niveau de l’entrée.
Je suivrai l’hebdoOSM et si votre modification est adoptée, je m’y mettrais également :).

Bonne journée
Arflha (2026-07-03 08:02:25+00:00): Oui exact le format -2 est ultérieur, la section Approximations est une construction organique néanmoins elle ne semble pas faire concensus d'où le bandeau et ne fait pas donc autorité.
silversurfer83 (2026-06-14 12:54:51+00:00): Moin :)

guck doch mal hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13932044589 da scheint dir was verrutscht

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184033035
bielebog (2026-06-14 22:21:43+00:00): Stimmt. Die Dachpappe ist nebenan auf dem Dach. Ist nun gefixt. Danke für's Hinschauen.
b-jazz (2026-06-16 03:55:36+00:00): Hey David,

We've been looking over your collection of changes and found many other cases of bad pin placements as you attempt to place distance markers. I'm asking you politely to go back and remove all of those pins that you've created until you can get buy off from the golf mapping community first. I will escalate this up to the data working group to start imposing time outs if you can't delete these yourself. You're placing pins on the boundaries of water hazards and bunkers which is, sorry for the pun, out of bounds of good mapping. 

thanks for your timely attention on this matter.
woodpeck (2026-06-16 07:50:17+00:00): The DWG has removed the remaininig "pins" added by user Hogmite and explained to them that while a water hazard exists and is mappable, random "pins" along the outline are not. We have requested that any future inventions of new tags be discussed with the community beforehand and threatened an account block if this is ignored.
Hogmite (2026-06-16 16:14:48+00:00): I kindly ask you to remove this section from the OSM Wiki: "Any tags you like" OSM manages metadata as a folksonomy. Each element contains key–value pairs, called tags, that identify and describe the feature.[22] A recommended ontology of map features (the meaning of tags) is maintained on a wiki. New tagging schemes can always be proposed by a popular vote of a written proposal in OpenStreetMap wiki, however, there is no requirement to follow this process: editors are free to use any tags they like to describe a feature. There are over 89 million different kinds of tags in use as of June 2017.[26]
GA_Kevin (2026-06-16 16:33:39+00:00): Relevant here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snowball_clause

We welcome new mappers to edit the map, but when it turns combative that’s when we need to engage folks like the DWG. You are welcome to propose any change you like, but ATYL is a core tenant of OSM and you’ll burn any political goodwill you have by suggesting we change that.

— Kevin
woodpeck (2026-06-16 16:49:26+00:00): To be clear, "any future inventions of new tags be discussed with the community" is a requirement that applies to Hogmite specifically, not to OSM users generally.
Hogmite (2026-06-16 17:54:39+00:00): I am not suggesting ATYL, I am stating that you aren't living up to that already. And I would say that what woodpeck has just stated above is particularly disturbing. Am I reading correctly that anybody else can live by ATYL but I personally am not allowed to?
Hogmite (2026-06-16 18:03:16+00:00): And the combative part was initiated by another user, not me. I was simply placing nodes and someone came in telling me my efforts were absurd and deleted them without discussion. I noticed you deleted all of that discussion. I'm not being combative, I asked for explanation and was told I was committing vandalism. Tell me who is being combative in that situation? Just because I questioned the actions it is ME that is being combative? And then there are the emails that were sent by the Working Group that were attacking rather than explaining and providing ways for me to contribute to this mapping community. You people need to take a real hard look at yourselves and evaluate if you are living up to why OSM was created. I've stopped making edits as you have decreed. Long live the king.
hdevine825 (2026-06-16 18:18:55+00:00): I would like to clarify Any Tags You Like. There is a substantial difference between inventing a new tag versus misusing an existing tag. If you want to create a new tag, say golf=front_of_green for example, that is very different than using an existing tag to map something different from its documented use. That causes all manner of issues for data consumers who have an established expectation of what that tagging means.
spatialia (2026-06-17 02:50:33+00:00): Well put. The world is complicated and ATYL is important. In a prior dispute, someone summed it up as "ATYL isn't a license to create confusion", which is what unilaterally changing the definition of this tag looks like. I agree that you'd be more likely to receive welcoming feedback if you use a new tag for this new meaning and not an existing one.
b-jazz (2026-06-17 03:29:05+00:00): “I was simply placing nodes”

That is a misrepresentation of what you were doing. You were placing golf pins where they don’t belong just so that you could get some measurement from that point. You placed a golf pin at the edge of a bunker. I’m sorry to be blunt, but yes, that is an absurdity and is 100% invalid and needs to be deleted. It isn’t something that needs to be discussed. It was wrong. If I were to map out a golf cart path and use a dual carriage highway to do it, that would be equally wrong and valid for immediately removal. 
You then go on a rant and say I “know nothing about golf” (false), “and obviously holds animus towards the game” (false) and “think they have a clue what they are talking about” (I’m fairly sure this is false as well). You then try to turn this around and say the community is all violating the code of conduct after your toxic behavior. 
I’ll go back to an earlier statement/suggestion I made to you and say that you are free to use OSM data as a base layer for your app and then store all the modifications you want in your own layer on top of that. You wouldn’t need to get any permission at that point as your venture would own that data and have full control over it.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-17 04:29:15+00:00): > I noticed you deleted all of that discussion.

Hi @Hogmite -- I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, sorry? Both the previous conversation on changeset 182764596 and the OSM-US Slack thread haven't been touched, nor would they be.

> And the combative part was initiated by another user, not me. [...] I asked for explanation and was told I was committing vandalism. Tell me who is being combative in that situation? Just because I questioned the actions it is ME that is being combative?

Taking a look back at the original discussion as a third-party observer (in the interests of full disclosure, I can't recall directly interacting with @b-jazz prior to today, while I do know @GA%20Kevin quite well who has been the most sympathetic to your point of view). @b-jazz led with a cordial introduction ("Hey there Hogmite") and a concise explanation of the issue with the changeset, whereas the immediate response included aggressive demands ("Stop deleting my work") and unfounded personal accusations ("you just deleted my efforts because golf courses make you 'noxious'.")--and I'm not seeing anywhere there you "asked for explanation" as opposed to insisting on your own point of view. I also can't find where in that thread "vandal" or "vandalism" was ever mentioned, nor instances of @b-jazz attacking you personally as opposed to engaging the mapping issue at hand. By contrast, I noted a several examples in the other direction starting from the very first reply, including the above, "What is absurd is someone who knows nothing about golf and obviously holds an animus towards the game thinking they have a clue what they are talking about." "Get over yourself," and the like.

While I understand its frustrating to have your changeset reverted, there is a significant difference between someone (or in this case, many someones) pointing out an issue with how you mapped something, and attacking you as a person. As a matter of fact, mappers like Kevin have practically bent over backwards to be as kind and welcoming toward you as humanly possible, even though they all have a very different perspective as you on the mapping issue involved.  As the old saying goes (perhaps even more true in the genteel game of golf than other competitive sports)... "Play the ball, not the man".
Hogmite (2026-06-17 11:27:23+00:00): You aren't a third party. Beginning a conversation with a crocodile smile "Hey there Hogmite" isn't cordial when followed up with I just deleted the hours of work you did. My response wasn't "STOP DELETING MY WORK". It was "There is no policy that I have found in OSM that prohibits it. Stop deleting my work." That is VERY different than what you portrayed my response to be. I then continued with what I read in Wiki about the use of the "pin" command. In fact I posted several comments explaining my reasoning. The reply?  "...It's as absurd as marking every pin placement that has ever existed in a given green." But that's not all. "If you have a problem with me deleting what is arguably wrong, you can approach the data working group and see if you can convince them." And THAT is when I became a little bit aggressive in my response. I'm no fool and knew when I was pointed to some working group to try to convince that I was dealing with a middle school mentality. I wasn't going to get anywhere. But out of curiosity, I thought I would join a OSM group to see if I could find golf mappers. I was invited to join a group, so I did. And guess what I encountered, a whole thread of people ridiculing everything I had done with one user trying to be sophisticated by using the word "audacity" to describe my actions. 

Defend that.
spatialia (2026-06-17 14:31:22+00:00): I'll chime in as someone who was a third party to the initial discussion then.

First, I know it's really hard to read anything where the message is "you did this incorrectly and it needs to be removed". I personally struggle with that. And also, I read the initial thread and could see how much b-jazz was trying to find you solutions - offering alternative tagging, or suggesting that your app calculate the distances itself (which is what I'd say the right answer would be here based on how other data consumers use OSM).

Regarding the Data Working Group and the "middle school mentality" - that's a big leap and assumption. The Data Working Group resolves disputes and protects the database. They deal both with bot-scale attacks trying to damage the database, and new mappers who need a moment to pause and work with the community. b-jazz was saying that if they agreed with you, then you'd be allowed to keep doing it - they're not friends who will blindly back each other up. The response you got from the Data Working Group was because the community by and large agrees that what you're doing isn't right for the map and it'd be good for you to pause and come talk with us.

And then the "whole thread of people ridiculing everything I had done" - I honestly see how it looks that way and am sorry that was your welcome to the community. That's crappy and bad on our side. People regularly ask in there "hey, I think this is wrong, do you all agree?" and sometimes get told "no, it's OK" and sometimes there's a pile of people agreeing. That happened here. Toward the end there are a few jokes - one was mine, and I'm sorry. I'd like to explain, because those jokes were about the people in that thread, not about you or your work. Someone mentioned a rangefinder. I replied to them about a desktop GIS because *they* are a product manager for desktop GIS. Then someone replied "funny way to spell JOSM", because that's their favorite desktop mapping tool. It's a bit flippant, but I want you to know it wasn't at your expense - regardless, I'm sorry that it was part of what you saw when you arrived. I never want to be part of making someone feel unwelcome.

There are multiple replies in that thread welcoming you now. There are people who would like to work together with you, who care both about the golf data and the database as a whole. Even if you choose not to come back there, I hope we can get away from what happened before either here in the changeset comments, or in Slack, and understand that you want a better golf map, and so do b-jazz and GA_Kevin. I think you'll find them as good partners, even if the initial introduction was hard. I *know* they're ready to work with you if you're ready to work together too.
woodpeck (2026-06-17 14:55:24+00:00): Just to mention how this went on the DWG side, one of my colleagues was the first to handle the ticket and asked Hogmite several times to take the matter up with the community, also explained all the things y'all have explained above about how a point on the outline of an already mapped feature just won't make the cut. Hogmite was unwilling to accept this and ultimately up asking for a different contact at DWG, which is when the thing ended up in my lap, and I reverted the edits, and patiently explained to Hogmite again what y'all said above (& re-iterated that he might want to discuss the problem he was trying to solve on the forum where people could then suggest alternative solutions), after which Hogmite told me that we don't have to worry about him because our pettiness had already driven him off. If you still have patience and capacity for friendly words, be my guest, but with his constant attempts at rule-lawyering and demands to explain this, change that, or defend something else he's certainly exhausted DWG's.
GA_Kevin (2026-06-17 15:05:27+00:00): Thanks Frederik! Context is important --Kevin
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-17 23:09:12+00:00): > You aren't a third party.

Note I said _third party_ (which is objectively the case for discussion in question, I am neither you, @b-jazz nor any other participant, nor was I even aware of it until after it concluded). I very intentionally did not claim to be "independent", "unbiased" or "neutral," as that is not a verifiable claim and we all have own own perspectives.

> And guess what I encountered, a whole thread of people ridiculing everything I had done with one user trying to be sophisticated by using the word "audacity" to describe my actions. Defend that.

It could have been gentler, sorry, as @spatialia mentioned. However, my whole point was that it was critiquing those _actions_, as you say, not you as a person (e.g. your golf knowledge, passion for the game, overall intelligence, personal motivations, etc.). And to be clear, your work is not "deleted", just reverted--it could be brought back, by you or others, just as easily as it was removed if there had been any community support for the changes. And multiple community members who are passionate about golf and mapping it have repeatedly expressed willingness to work together with you to come up with a way to move forward on this together.
jplahti (2026-07-06 18:07:11+00:00): Portaissa rakennuksen osassa on step_count, mutta ei toimi noin vaan sen sijaan esim. step:height=0.2 toimii rakennuksissa.
Lieckio (2026-07-06 19:35:09+00:00): Ok, kopioin tämän jostain Pietarissa olevasta rakennuksesta, joka oli lueteltu hyvin piirretyissä rakennuksissa.

Tuo porrastyyli löytyy myös Finlaysonin kirkosta ja Aleksanterin kirkosta. En tosin tiedä portaiden korkeuksia.
jplahti (2026-07-09 11:32:59+00:00): Perun sanojani! F4map osaa näemmä hyödyntää tuota step_count-arvoa, mutta toisaalta paljon käyttämäni Urban Eye ei osaa (vielä?). Näitä ei ole kovin hyvin dokumentoitu wikiin. :)
Lieckio (2026-07-09 12:17:57+00:00): No tämäpä se ongelma onkin, kun Wiki on niin paljon jäljessä ja vajaana monessakin asiassa... toki ymmärtäähän tuon, että ensin karttaa vapaaehtoisesti naperreltuaan, ei herkästi tule näperrettyä vielä Wikiä päälle... :)
kullibbin (2026-06-12 22:07:59+00:00): Есть кто живой в Любимово? Тут очень много работы.. я один не осилю :)
StreetSurveyor (2026-06-13 11:16:48+00:00): The change to Boston Stadium appears to be a temporary FIFA World Cup branding initiative and does not represent a permanent or officially adopted name change. As such, it should not be mapped as the official name in OSM. Temporary event branding is generally better handled with a temporary or alternate naming tag if needed, while retaining the venue’s established official name.
Nnifria (2026-06-14 07:28:34+00:00): Привіт! 
Будь ласка, не з'єднуй території (будь-якого типу) з дорогами, як-от, наприклад, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1524919595. 
Хоч це й невеликі нюанси, але потім дуже незручно виправляти помилки на мапі :)
SomeoneElse (2026-06-13 12:02:28+00:00): Usual problem - townland etc. breakage - fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184053304 .
b-unicycling (2026-06-13 22:56:01+00:00): Thx.
McKulkin (2026-06-24 14:00:42+00:00): hi. is node/11986715547 safe enough now? Thanks.
yelisey90 (2026-06-24 17:30:55+00:00): Well, I didn't notice anything extraordinary at that point. Definitely safe for hiking. I don't remember exactly, maybe there are some obstacles for vehicles... But closer to the top the road has definitely been severly damaged by streams, which created gullies right in the middle of it; so the upper part of the road is likeky smoothness=very_horrible by now. But I'm not sure, I only have some experience with driving on very_bad roads...
oba510 (2026-06-15 05:59:26+00:00): Hi,
Standard bike lanes, sharrows, etc. that area just part of the street are generally mapped with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway tags on the road, not drawn as a separate highway=cycleway way.  The green bike stripe on 40th Street for example is really just a strange form of cycleway=shared_lane and was already correctly mapped.
jacobwhall (2026-06-13 02:29:26+00:00): Hey! Super fun day at SOTMUS today. I believe this is a duplicate of node 13723598360, though it looks like you picked a better spot. May we keep that original node and delete this one?
KaiserDr (2026-06-22 22:35:40+00:00): Aquest camí encara existeix encara que està poc mantingut. No es pot borrar.
KaiserDr (2026-06-22 22:32:28+00:00): Aquests camins son de domini public i estan catalogats als ajuntaments de Fornells i Girona, no s’hak de borrar
Stonpic (2026-06-25 03:37:35+00:00): Hola, sols comentar que vaig seguir la tuta d'aquest camí, però si existeix el pagès ha sembrat sobre ell i és per això em va semblar bé editar aquest tram per intentar contribuir. Salutacions
KaiserDr (2026-06-25 08:05:48+00:00): Perfecte, moltes gràcies!
SomeoneElse (2026-06-12 23:34:51+00:00): For the signage of this, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13932273615/history .
jacobwhall (2026-06-13 02:31:17+00:00): Great day at SOTMUS today!

This public bookcase is a possible duplicate of 13723598361, though this public bookcase node is better placed. May we keep the original node to keep it's history?
ianrbuck (2026-06-14 16:03:59+00:00): That's seems like a safe bet, it would be unusual for a Little Free Library to be inside a building!
FajrAl (2026-06-13 01:57:43+00:00): jika jalan tidak bisa dimasuki mobil, gunakan tag `motorcar=no`
Glassman (2026-06-14 00:23:46+00:00): If routers are sending people on access=private tracks, then it a problem with the router. Can you please change these back to access=private and talk to the router company to get them not to use these tracks?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184037830
FajrAl (2026-06-13 11:29:25+00:00): and Bandung
pwbriggs (2026-06-14 19:39:40+00:00): FYI, this changeset and two others were reverted by another user in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184106981. I don't see why it would be better to have a separate address point, rather than putting the address on the building itself. To discuss further, please leave a comment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184106981.

Thanks; happy mapping!
SD Mapman (2026-06-17 17:26:49+00:00): Please do not remove designation names without further discussion. This leads to loss of data (e.g. directionals)
Glassman (2026-06-14 00:28:20+00:00): Tru by Hilton sounds like a hotel instead of a commercial building. Can you please review this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184038322
Glassman (2026-06-14 00:25:30+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184038442
Glassman (2026-06-14 00:27:21+00:00): Can you also add the type of religion to the building. Use religion= and if known, denomination=. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:religion for more information on how to tag religious buildings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184038495
SD Mapman (2026-06-17 17:22:26+00:00): Hello, please do not remove designation names. Additionally, route suffixes are not to be abbreviated regardless of how it renders (e.g. Business needs to be spelled out).