piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
gymate (2025-05-30 19:53:28+00:00): Changeset tags that I left out (sorry!):

import:tool:url=https://github.com/KAMI911/osm_poi_matchmaker
import:tool:version=0.8.0
import:tool=osm_poi_matchmaker
import:area=hungary
mechanical=yes
is_in:country_code=HU
is_in:country=Hungary
import:discussion:url=https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2018-July/005591.html
Wulfmorn (2025-06-02 08:08:08+00:00): Path moved: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167079819
Hidoo00 (2025-06-02 08:23:44+00:00): Tack!
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2025-05-31 02:40:37+00:00): هذه المساحة السكانية غير واقعية وتم عكسها وإزالتها واسترجاع المساحات السابقة
ika-chan! (2025-06-01 19:30:59+00:00): You should leave a better changeset comment than just random letters.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166989423
andershl (2025-10-01 08:16:40+00:00): This changeset shoud be reverted or revised so as not to re-introduce/duplicate items already in the map.
Glassman (2025-05-31 17:26:49+00:00): #TIP: Address nodes typically either go near the main building or as part of the building outline.  I see you added a building in a subsequent edit. Can you move the address to the building?

#TIP: Instead of deleting a feature, just modify the geometry instead.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166990159
Glassman (2025-05-31 17:27:35+00:00): #TIP: The building outline should match the roof.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166990216
Comino (2025-05-31 19:07:53+00:00): Hi leonacostaok,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=*".
Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Only use "currency:XBT=yes" instead.
Please read : https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants

Happy mapping,

Edwin
AndreaDp271 (2025-06-02 13:47:41+00:00): The changeset are it's too big
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166990305
heptagon (2025-06-02 16:07:47+00:00): Oh wow, I didn't mean to do that. I was trying to fix warnings in Ružinov (Slovakia), I have no idea how n4838988248 got downloaded.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-05 14:27:57+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12876086971/history has reference = 212224 that was added in this edit
maybe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref would fit?

ref= is widely used for references
TheNightRider (2025-12-06 01:57:22+00:00): Thanks! Yikes! Not sure how "reference" got in there because I've been extending "ref" lately for store numbers with "ref:store_number" (taginfo shows 224 uses worldwide, and it's growing). ref by itself is mysterious, so why not name it better?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-06 09:33:21+00:00): > ref by itself is mysterious, so why not name it better?

no idea who had this idea, maybe it makes more sense fot UK native speakers?
Either way, it has got established and widely used. BTW, there are sillier ones, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_keys_and_values
TheNightRider (2025-12-23 10:38:27+00:00): Ha! Yeah, well, I'm all for tags and keys that are so self-documenting that you don't have to look anything up in the OSM wiki. Of course, people will say, "We've always done it this way," but since OSM is an ever-evolving project, why not improve it by making it easier to use?
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-21 12:02:58+00:00): well, the problem is that changing all the parts over to reference is not exactly easy
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-21 12:03:48+00:00): (and I did some work to make tagging more reasonable, but targeted either cases where replacement was popular and established or there were two systems in use)
TheNightRider (2026-01-31 08:41:00+00:00): I know what you mean. Things got created and people got really used to them. Then someone new comes along and asks questions and wants to make a change.
TheNightRider (2026-01-31 08:51:01+00:00): I do see a lot of extensions to the ref key documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref
captaininler (2026-04-02 20:31:24+00:00): Auf Basis welcher Quelle wurde die Hauptstrasse von Samedan nach S-Chanf von Via Chantunela nach Engadinerstrasse umbenannt? Im Amtlichen Strassenverzeichnis ist das nicht so.. 
https://map.geo.admin.ch/#/map?lang=de&center=2790107.12,1161066.81&z=8&topic=ech&layers=ch.swisstopo.amtliches-strassenverzeichnis@features=10170335&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-farbe
Nekoatthegates (2025-06-03 20:16:08+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery; Strava.
notmyproblem1 (2025-05-30 21:32:31+00:00): da esri* scusatemi
grzegorz75jan (2025-05-31 00:11:18+00:00): Do jakiej sieci należy ten parcel_locker https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391049058#map=19/53.025616/18.590834 
Bez dodatkowych informacji jest on w obecnej formie praktycznie bezużyteczny dla innych użytkowników.
i czy nie jest on duplikatem już istniejącego na mapie jako węzeł oraz posiada adnotację z prośbą o weryfikację położenia.

Z podkładu zdjęć lotniczych wygląda, że istnieje tam tylko jeden. 

Czy doszło do zmian w terenie i powstał kolejny ale innej firmy czy jak wspomniałem wcześniej jest duplikatem już istniejącego.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166991146
user_22937564 (2025-06-01 18:45:44+00:00): Duplikat, już usuwam
eteb3 (2025-05-30 21:36:44+00:00): also some alignment nearby from aerial
Colin Smale (2025-05-31 09:52:14+00:00): Please revert these changes. railway=preserved is problematic and has been superseded by railway:preserved=yes. Please refer to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=preserved?uselang=en-GB
SomeoneElse (2025-05-31 09:42:31+00:00): Hello 최이두두두두 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Please do slow down when you are mapping things.
It's clear that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056097 is actually supposed to be rectangular and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056100 is more than one building.
You can make buildings rectangular by pressing "q" in the online editor.
Please also use actual words to describe what you did.  "#hotosm-project-16193 #banjirdemak #disasterresponse #POI2024 " is just hashtag gibberish - it does not explain what you actually mapped, what sources you used, etc.
If you have any questions, please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025052710000367] 최이두두두두".
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2025-05-31 09:43:06+00:00): 안녕하세요, 최이두두두두님, OpenStreetMap에 오신 것을 환영합니다!
지도를 제작하실 때는 속도를 늦춰주세요.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056097은 실제로 직사각형이어야 하고, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056100은 건물 여러 개로 구성되어 있습니다.
온라인 편집기에서 "q" 키를 눌러 건물을 직사각형으로 만들 수 있습니다.
또한, 무엇을 했는지 설명하는 데 실제 단어를 사용해 주세요. "#hotosm-project-16193 #banjirdemak #disasterresponse #POI2024 "는 해시태그에 불과하며, 실제로 무엇을 매핑했는지, 어떤 출처를 사용했는지 등을 설명하지 않습니다.
문의 사항이 있으시면 "[Ticket#2025052710000367] 최이두두두"라는 제목으로 data@openstreetmap.org로 이메일을 보내주세요.
감사합니다,
앤디
andershl (2025-09-29 22:10:07+00:00): This was here more than 4 years ago H.G. Backlund Fjord (9014313906)
andershl (2025-09-29 22:11:35+00:00): This fjord was here 4 years ago. Should be made an outline, not a new line.
eggie (2025-05-31 04:57:11+00:00): Dag Quimten. Landuse- en watervlakken zijn altijd lastig.. omdat water in rendering altijd boven ligt. Je zult dan multipolygonen moeten gebruiken om iets zichtbaar te maken en de valkken van elkaar te scheiden.
Wat leesvoer
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Multipolygon_Examples

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-05-31 05:24:35+00:00): Het eilandje was achteraf oke... Het strand heb ik gescheiden van het bos.
MVG
eggie
mystery2008 (2026-02-13 18:31:00+00:00): Здравствуйте, через все шлагбаумы, что вы ометили, можно пройти пешеходам. Следует исправить "ограничение доступа - пешеходам - yes вместо no. Из-за этой отметки "no" навигатор строит пеший маршрут в обход шлагбаумов. Какие-то, которые я видел, исправил сам.
andershl (2025-09-26 13:08:34+00:00): For fixing relations you are better than me. However Hans Tausen Iskappe is NOT Hans Tausens lskappe. Official name database: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=c5c7d9d52a264980a24911d7d33914b5 More comments may follow as I am about to supplement/import all official names in the area.
urk (2025-09-27 15:34:32+00:00): Ditch Graben Nr.42d (17a) und track kreuzen auf einer Ebene. Fehlt eine Unterführung?
urk (2025-09-27 15:20:19+00:00): Der Graben "unterkreuzt" wohl einen Weg. Müsste hier der Graben mit culvert und layer -1 ergänzt werden?
SpinOff (2025-05-31 17:29:21+00:00): Hej. CPR został zamieniony z chodnikiem? Na zdjęciach lotniczych po prawej stronie widać przejazdy rowerowe.
Zwiadowca21 (2025-06-02 17:10:41+00:00): Od ulicy Wyspiańskego droga rowerowa idzie oddzielona krawężnikiem z chodnikiem do  skrzyżowania z Sienkiewiczą po stronie wschodniej. Później tuż przed skrzyżowaniem jest przejazd na stronę zachodnią i przez przejazd pieszo-rowerowy przechodzi na stronę zachodnią. Później (po stronie zachodniej) idzie przy Prusa jako wspólny przebieg dla rowerów i pieszych do skrzyżownia z Żeromskiego. Na Żeromskiego już na zachód wspólny ciąg pieszo-rowerowy na wschód wydziolona krawężnikiem droga rowerowa.
SpinOff (2025-06-02 20:40:18+00:00): Dzięki
dadavid (2025-05-31 00:32:58+00:00): Hi, 
Bin gerade über die Namen gestolpert, die sind ja schon ungewöhnlich. 
Aus welcher Quelle stammen die denn? :) 

Viele Grüße

David
woodpeck (2025-06-04 07:02:35+00:00): Hello StreetSurveyor, during your survey have you encountered this sign https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buttonwoods_private_community_sign.jpg which says "private roads, no trespassing" and have you decided that somehow this sign should be interpreted as "access=permissive", or have you not encountered this sign? It is located where Mill Wheel Rd branches off Buttonwoods Av. so it applies at least to everything South-East of that intersection.
StreetSurveyor (2025-06-04 08:27:51+00:00): Unfortunately as of 2023 access=private is widely used as a duplicate of access=permissive as well as ownership=private and should not be expected to match the originally intended meaning.”  In my survey, each house receives mail delivery as well as trash and recycling pickup. This and the fact that the roads were wide open without any gates led me to feel that “access=permissive” (which is how they were previously tagged) is the most appropriate.
StreetSurveyor (2025-06-04 08:28:53+00:00): There is a sign but access talks to whether the road is physically restricted (gate). From the Wiki: “Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not whether the object is privately owned or not. Use ownership=private or operator:type=private to record this kind of status. For example, a privately owned road with public access may be tagged like any other road with public access – without access=* tag, or with the explicit access=permissive.
Unfortunately as of 2023 access=private is widely used as a duplicate of access=permissive as well as ownership=private and should not be expected to match the originally intended meaning.”  In my survey, each house receives mail delivery as well as trash and recycling pickup. This and the fact that the roads were wide open without any gates led me to feel that “access=permissive” (which is how they were previously tagged) is the most appropriate.
woodpeck (2025-06-04 10:26:32+00:00): Hello StreetSurveyor, your interpretation of access tagging is not in line with the community consensus. An "access restriction" can be legal, it does not have to be physical (and in fact rarely is). The fact that mail delivery and trash collection services are allowed to use a road does not mean that the public is allowed to do so.

I am saying the following with my DWG hat on (and tracking this in DWG ticket 2025060410000023):

Please do not make any changes to access tags (i.e. access=*, foot=*, bicycle=*, vehicle=* etc.) in the future without first having discussed your reasoning on the relevant public OSM forum, https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 for the US. Make a forum post where you write which area you intend to change access tags in (and from what to what), and explain your reasoning. Only continue with your planned changes if there is no major disagreement.

If this is too much of a burden for you, then do not make any access tag changes at all. Your recent changes are suitable to put OpenStreetMap users in danger and damage OSM's reputation. If you believe that land owners are overstepping their rights by putting up "no trespassing" signs then please direct your energy towards challenging the signs, not towards misrepresenting the situation on OSM.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-06-09 16:44:41+00:00): I edited wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate#Clarification_of_the_term_%E2%80%9Cprivate%E2%80%9D to explicitly refute misunderstanding that happened here

@StreetSurveyor  - do you remember where you made edit like this one, that should be fixed?
StreetSurveyor (2025-06-09 17:05:58+00:00): Thank you both for your thoughtful responses and for explaining the tagging conventions. I genuinely appreciate the clarification, and I now understand that access=* is based on legal rights, not just physical access. That was my misunderstanding, and I apologize for any confusion or disruption caused by my edits.

To your question—I’ve already corrected the changes here and will identify if any other locations need to be corrected or discussed further. I want to make sure the data aligns with community standards.

I also want to kindly ask if the requirement to post in the community forum before any access tag changes could be reconsidered. I completely understand the need for consensus and transparency, especially in complex or disputed cases. However, for small, good-faith corrections—especially when there’s visible signage or other supporting evidence—it may be more practical to allow experienced contributors some discretion. I’d be glad to engage on the forum when something is ambiguous or potentially controversial, but I hope that a middle ground could be considered for routine edits.

Lastly, if a “No Trespassing” sign is posted by a private individual, does that alone justify tagging a road as access=private? I’d appreciate guidance on how to evaluate the legitimacy of such signs and determine whether a road is truly private or publicly accessible, particularly when services like mail or trash collection still occur.

Thanks again for your time and engagement. I enjoy contributing to OSM and want to ensure my efforts continue to be accurate, constructive, and in line with community values.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-06-10 17:22:23+00:00): there is some discussion in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/help-needed-review-of-road-access-restrictions-mostly-massachusetts/131168

> Lastly, if a “No Trespassing” sign is posted by a private individual, does that alone justify tagging a road as access=private? 

yes, if it applies to road (note that some people post intentionally misleading ones)

> particularly when services like mail or trash collection still occur.

these can occur on access=private ways
StreetSurveyor (2025-06-11 02:37:22+00:00): Hello,

Thank you again for the detailed feedback. I want to respectfully reaffirm that I stand by my recent access tagging edits, which were made in good faith and also based on credible public sources.

The City of Warwick’s official GIS system, https://www.axisgis.com/WarwickRI/ clearly shows the roads in question—including those in the Old Buttonwoods area—as public. This supports the view that, despite the presence of “No Trespassing” or “Residents Only” signs, legal public access remains in place.

Additionally, local reporting further clarifies the history and legal status of these roads. A 2020 Warwick Beacon article titled “Buttonwoods is not a fiefdom but rather a borough” https://warwickonline.com/stories/buttonwoods-is-not-a-fiefdom-but-rather-a-borough,156753 explains that:
	•	The Buttonwoods neighborhood originated as a planned public resort community in 1871.
	•	The Buttonwood Beach Association, acting as a land development company—not a private HOA—was legally obligated to plat and maintain public streets to support the sale and access of lots.
	•	This public designation was recorded with the Warwick Town Clerk and remains valid unless formally rescinded by the Warwick City Council.
	•	Public funds from the City of Warwick continue to maintain infrastructure in the area, including streetlights—further reinforcing public ownership and responsibility.
	•	Even efforts to create a “privacy committee” and restrict access were legally challenged and curtailed due to their conflict with public access laws.

While signs may suggest limited access, the legal and municipal documentation tells a different story. Based on this, I still believe that tagging these roads as access=permissive—acknowledging that public use is allowed but may be discouraged informally—is the most accurate reflection of the situation. It recognizes the historical public designation and city maintenance, while also respecting the visible (if unenforceable) signage.

My goal continues to be the responsible and accurate representation of on-the-ground conditions. I welcome further discussion, and I’m happy to engage in the forum if the community feels this needs broader consensus. That said, I do hope the evidence provided is considered before assuming the tagging was incorrect or potentially harmful.

Thank you again for your engagement and for the work you do to ensure OSM remains reliable and well-managed.
ZeLonewolf (2025-08-16 17:20:19+00:00): I have reverted StreetSurveyor's most recent change removing private-access tagging.  This change was not discussed in the US community as required by the DWG comment upthread.
mueschel (2025-05-31 10:28:44+00:00): Hi,
something went wrong here. Most of this data are duplicates of existing features.
This happens if you load a geojson or similar file into JOSM and then try to upload it. You have to load data directly from the API or Overpass - every other way will lead to duplicates and not to editing the already existing objects.

I reverted these changes.
Poliana Rezende Costa (2025-10-07 18:40:00+00:00): Hello, thank you for the correction and the tip!
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-29 05:36:36+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed changes, uncertain Source, no response

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168250865
aharvey (2025-06-06 05:11:53+00:00): The outline you've drawn seems to line up with Sentinel imagery which shows it. Well done.
eggie (2025-05-31 04:53:27+00:00): Beste TPM  In OSM svp geen name=gebruiken om iets te beschrijven. Dus bv niet name=Huis name=Bankje  dus ook geen name=Yard.
Dit zijn nu een maal van die regeltjes binnen OSM. 

De straatnaam zal hier name=Gelderse Sluis zijn.

MVG
eggie
xandergue170 (2025-06-02 04:05:10+00:00): #project1
vrix (2025-05-31 10:13:49+00:00): This changeset broke something: the "Kyoto" relation (R357794) is not available anymore in search tools such as Nominatim.
user_8655426 (2025-06-03 11:47:09+00:00): 変更セット: 167051128 で修正済み。
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167051128

京都市 (357794)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/357794
aharvey (2025-06-06 05:02:07+00:00): is it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dfibre_reinforced_polymer_grate ?
arctic-rocinante (2025-06-12 02:27:55+00:00): Yes I think so (going from memory - I didn't take a photo).

To be honest I copied the surface tag from a nearby boardwalk segment that looked like the same material. Seems that one originated from the below changeset (which switched it over from "plastic"):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147282244
Frans S (2025-05-31 10:43:01+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
As mentioned in my comment on task 674, your mappings are not in line with the HOTOSM mapping standards.
Not rounded and oversized.
I remove these mappings.
I will review all your mappings and  will remove the bad mappings.
Best  regards
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:44:51+00:00): Reversed with changeset 167504630, due to bad building mappings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166995807
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:42:29+00:00): Reversed by changeset 167504562, due to bad building mapping.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166995950
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:48:09+00:00): Reversed by changeset 167504517
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:38:02+00:00): Reversed with changeset 167504449
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166996180
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:48:46+00:00): Due to bad building mappings
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:35:56+00:00): Reversed with changeset 167504338
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166996213
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:50:05+00:00): Due to bad buildings mappings
martien-176 (2025-06-10 18:53:55+00:00): Reverted with changeset 167459288
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166996253
martien-176 (2025-06-11 18:52:21+00:00): Due to bad buildings mappings
jhaluska80 (2025-06-01 04:16:39+00:00): While the first instincts of many new mappers are to removed it, the approved approach is change the tags on it to accurately describe the road's state. (known as lifecycle prefixes)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

access=no
Changed the highway type to destroyed:highway
or abandoned:highway

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destroyed:*

These are lesser known tags to new mappers.  The reason we do this is it accurately describes the road, the access tag will prevent routers (gps systems) from using it.  

The main reason we do this is it prevents future mappers from readding it without knowing the state

So I'd recommend you revert the change and add the tags.  You can revert it here (https://revert.monicz.dev/ ) with the changeset 166997227.

None of this is obvious to new mappers or even shows up in the editor without manually editing the tags, so don't feel bad.  Let me know if you need more help with it.
aharvey (2025-06-06 04:59:34+00:00): OSRM is adding area routing, so hopefully this will soon be not needed (maybe once enough routers follow too)
BCNorwich (2025-05-31 11:09:47+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There are a few things wrong with your mapping. You have the feature mapped at the wrong building,  thus I'm reverting the change.

It looks like the business you're trying to add is an online shop. Please see this page https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/72910/how-should-i-map-an-online-shopping-store  as the shop might not be OK for OSM.

Regards Bernard.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-05 16:23:23+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12876511240/history has shop = مواد_غذایی that was added in this edit
shop=مواد_غذایی ? What is the meaning of that shop value? What kind of services or products are sold here? Is anything from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_for_key_%22shop%22 fitting? Maybe new value needs to be invented? Maybe this data is wrong and there is no shop here? Maybe it is not a shop but something else?
martien-176 (2025-06-10 18:02:09+00:00): Hi, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT.

The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But unfortunately they are all parallelogram shaped, while they should be square cornered and have some variation of rectangular.

I notice this is not the only occasion you mapped this way. Please check out these educational resources, they will help you to improve your mappings:
 
- Buildings--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o
- Roads--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLwb2nisJQ 
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit

Thanks so much for your contribution, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166998109