piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
acubens71 (2026-05-10 22:53:41+00:00): Bonsoir,
Les petits éléments circulaires marqués comme "man_made=embankment" sont probablement des dolines ("natural=sinkhole"), pas des structures artificielles. (il y a aussi sans doutes des crevasses taggées incorrectement comme des structures artificielles).

Cdlt,
Curieux de découvertes (2026-05-11 16:26:03+00:00): Bonjour
Les éléments circulaires ne sont des dolines car ils présentent un boulait circulaires autour ce qui n’est le cas des dolines. Par contre, savez vous comment noter des failles et non des tranchées et des déclivité de terrain sans que ce soit des falaises ou des terre plein ?
Merci d’avance
acubens71 (2026-05-11 20:44:01+00:00): C'est curieux qu'on les retrouve apparemment toujours sur des plateaux calcaires et qu'elles soient en creux et sans accès comme pour une carrière! À quoi cela peut-il bien correspondre ? (vraie question, car des structures d'érosion me sont assez spontanément venues à l'esprit) D'anciennes cabanes ?

Pour les déclivités de terrain fortes en terrain meuble, il y a natural=earth_bank pour ça. Pour les failles, apparemment il existe natural=gully pour les petites incisions, sinon natural=gorge mais je suis pas sûr que ce dernier tag corresponde à cette échelle.

Bien à vous,
Curieux de découvertes (2026-05-12 05:12:28+00:00): Bonjour
Merci beaucoup pour ces précisions précieuses. 
Concernant les formes circulaires, je penche pour des fours à chaux artisanaux... qu’en pensez vous ?
acubens71 (2026-05-12 19:42:15+00:00): C'est une possibilité en effet.
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-10 22:42:30+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13816179379

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Mapikids (2026-05-10 22:48:46+00:00): Hello, the problem has been resolved. Thank you for your vigilance.
eggie (2026-05-11 06:47:58+00:00): Dag Alexander.

Het routeerde hier niet meer voor tweewielers als uitzondering op oneway=yes
De uitzonderingen voor tweewielers heb ik toegevoegd. access=yes heb ik verwijderd. Dat hoort niet op wegen getagd te worden.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-05-11 06:50:16+00:00): Wat bedoel je met cycleway:both=yes ?
Voorlopig verwijderd.
MVG
eggie
Alexander Meijer (2026-05-14 14:53:52+00:00): hallo Eggie,
het probleem met dit stuk weg is dat navigatie je met de auto er vanaf de verkeerde kant in stuurt.
als je in OSM met de auto navigeert
van: Schouwburgring 14, Tilburg
naar: Rankenstraat, Tilburg
stuurt OSM je van west naar noord over dit stuk weg, en dat mag helemaal niet
met mijn edits heb ik geprobeerd dit te fixen.
de navigatie in mijn Tesla maakt de exact zelfde fout, ik begrijp dat Tesla OSM data gebruikt.
status van deze weg is:
voetganger mogen alles
fietsers mogen alles
alle auto's mogen van 06:00 tot 11:00 van noord naar west
auto's met een ontheffing mogen altijd van noord naar west
auto's mogen nooit van west naar noord
hoe moet ik dit fixen?
eggie (2026-05-14 15:03:59+00:00): Hoi.. Ik denk dat de regel motor_vehicle=permit hier weg moet.

Tesla gebruikt dacht ik valhalla als router.
Osrm en graphhopper routeren hier wel, maar valhalla maakt een omweg.
eggie (2026-05-14 15:04:28+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_car&route=51.555746%2C5.082728%3B51.555179%2C5.08188#map=15/51.55696/5.08470
eggie (2026-05-14 15:10:46+00:00): Die conditional tagging met die tijden zal denk ik ook niet door valhalla begrepen worden .
Die conditional tagging zal wel zijn om die permit te overrulen.
De meeste router kunnen er niet mee overweg vandaar dat osrm en graphhopper hier wel routeren.
Wanneer je permit weghaalt zal het voor valhalla wel opgelost zijn... maar het is dan taggen voor de 'router'.
Maar permit? Aan wie zou je toestemming moeten vragen?
Ik tag meestal de conditional tijden dat je er niet mag rijden en laat die permit dan weg.
eggie (2026-05-14 15:36:52+00:00): en met GrapHopper dus wel.. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car&route=51.555735%2C5.082684%3B51.555221%2C5.081735
Alexander Meijer (2026-05-14 15:49:30+00:00): Valhalla doet 't goed, in beide richtingen, de andere 2 doen alles fout (op dit stuk weg dan :-)
google denkt ook dat Tesla Valhalla gebruikt, dan is het extra vreemd dat m'n Tesla het ook fout doet.
ik ben niet zo ervaren in het maken van edits, kan je samenvatten wat ik volgens jou het beste kan doen?
eggie (2026-05-14 16:42:35+00:00): Iets aanpassen zodat het met jouw router goed gaat is eigenlijk niet toegestaan.
Ik weer dat graphhopper met conditionaltags kan omgaan. Osrm volgens mij niet.
Ik ken de scripts van valhalla niet.
Denk een vraagje voor het forum van osm.
Permit lijkt me in ieder geval fout.. dat zou eerder no moeten zijn. Dan zal valhalla nog steeds niet kunnen routeren als de motor_vehicle:conditional=yes (tijden)
niet wordt begrepen.
En dan zal je navigatie ook tijdvensters moeten begrijpen. Kan valhalla dat?
Volgens mij kan mijn tomtom ook niet met tijdvensters omgaan en mijn garmin ook niet.
Vraag het eens aan het forum.
Alexander Meijer (2026-05-14 19:00:15+00:00): ik heb 't nog een keer geprobeert (Your changeset #: 182666044), dit is maximaal accuraat, alleen de permit toegang weg gelaten, die komt toch binnenkort te vervalllen
eggie (2026-05-14 19:06:24+00:00): Dan nu de update van valhalla afwachten.
Alexander Meijer (2026-05-14 19:09:54+00:00): moet jij changeset #: 182666044 goedkeuren oid?
eggie (2026-05-14 19:17:26+00:00): Nop... ik ga helemaal nergens over 😀

Ik stuur de welkomstberichten en doe de eerste screening.
Bij osm zit niemand aan de knoppen.
Er zijn wel algemene regels waar we ons aan houden. 
Bv niet taggen voor de router. Die router 'moet' zich confirmeren aan de conventie van osm.
Dus zelf goed kijken of het klopt.
Константин Гам (2026-05-28 14:04:23+00:00): Вы зачем-то создали дубль станции метро "Фрунзенская", пожалуйста внимательней.
cubbe8 (2026-06-01 03:12:08+00:00): This is not a motorway.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183475036
World_Winner (2026-05-11 10:06:28+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 182502346
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-10 22:42:36+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Kopcie":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/865878099
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/865878349
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212190801
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212407255

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Piotr Strębski (2026-05-16 13:27:24+00:00): Poprawione, dziękuję!
VladaC (2026-05-10 22:39:35+00:00): Oops, changeset description should have read "Tourism POIs south of Louny".
TrickyFoxy (2026-05-12 21:58:49+00:00): Зачем вы проставили точки в названия и нарисовали дорожки на куполе собора?
TrickyFoxy (2026-05-12 22:06:25+00:00): Кажется понял. Вы пытались исправить предупреждения валидатора. Но это неправильный путь.

Во-первых, предупреждение это именно предупреждение, а не ошибка, которую надо всегда исправлять.

Во-вторых, он ругался на имена вида Продукты, Цветы, потому что обычно это не является настоящим названием места. Обычно названия либо нет, либо оно другое. Подробнее тут: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Названия#Не_подходите_к_названиям_формально[1]
Taksine (2026-05-11 12:57:32+00:00): 欢迎新人👋
Jonathan Ng@ (2026-05-13 11:00:23+00:00): 欢迎新人！！！
silversurfer83 (2026-05-11 18:21:41+00:00): Danke.

Würde mich sehr freuen, wenn du/ihr in Zukunft auch noch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments beachten würdet.

happy mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182487682
clay_c (2026-05-18 02:34:52+00:00): Hi nickvet419,

Why was the name of this junction changed from "Cermak Junction" to "Cermak Jct"? On OSM, we avoid abbreviations in names [1]. Wouldn't an abbreviation like "Cermak Jct" belong in short_name=*?

Moreover, it looks like you made a series of name changes over a short period of time. This indicates that such a change might need broader discussion with the community. I strongly suggest consulting the OSM US community in the future for changes like this, either by Slack [2] or through the forum [3].

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviations

[2] https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

[3] https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78
MappingMore (2026-05-12 07:04:22+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:182540401
MappingMore (2026-05-12 10:38:47+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:182548121
BidgeeWagga (2026-05-31 10:29:36+00:00): Do you have any local knowledge? As there is currently no way to make a right hand turn due to a temp island.
Maradona11 (2026-06-01 21:45:36+00:00): I based it on bus operator data and imagery capture 7.5.2026.  I will get back to the operator. thank you.
Maradona11 (2026-06-01 21:46:17+00:00): imagery from 2025.
Wildsharky (2026-05-12 11:29:14+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:182537158
Wildsharky (2026-05-13 06:46:36+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:182582219
Evan Boyer (2026-05-13 14:13:01+00:00): While I know it does not appear accurate in 2D form, you can see in 3D, it looks much better - https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=29.7579238&lon=-95.3668035&zoom=18&camera.theta=69.064&camera.phi=98.549. Unless you have ideas on how better to depict the building details, could you keep my additions here?
HeyRayReh (2026-05-11 02:13:55+00:00): Forgot to include this source: https://santaclarita.gov/parks-division/blog/2023/06/07/duane-r-harte-park-at-river-village/
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-20 11:41:55+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam and other tagging for POI in changeset 184349731

https://osm.org/changeset/184349731
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-16 13:12:37+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags and explicit source=* of Google Maps, which is not allowed by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184181551

https://osm.org/changeset/184181551
Kovoschiz (2026-05-11 18:26:24+00:00): `=living_street` is a legal traffic class for pedestrian priority. It's either `=pedestrian` + `motor_vehicle=` , or `=residential` + physical attributes.
vbertola (2026-05-12 01:32:59+00:00): I don't know. Definitely these are not footways, they are broad enough for vehicles and I did find vehicles on them, though not many. So they are not pedestrian either, though you could do with pedestrian + motor_vehicle=permit. I wouldn't use residential as residential streets have cars as their priority. Living street seemed like a good compromise as indeed these are streets where the majority of the traffic is made by pedestrians and light 2-wheel vehicles, so they do feel like a living street. But if you prefer pedestrian, it's fine as well. Just let's find something better than footway because the previous mapping made it really hard to understand what is the main path across the villages.
kingkingHK (2026-05-12 03:02:39+00:00): `highway=pedestrian` + `motor_vehicle=yes` exist. "So they are not pedestrian either" is not correct.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-12 18:04:35+00:00):  It's very clearly described "A general feature of living streets is that the legislation grants pedestrians higher or equal right of way over other road users" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=living_street
This needs to be signposted, not any road you feel like. It's not "a good compromise".
vbertola (2026-05-13 00:33:24+00:00): This depends on the country. Not all countries have a specific legislation or road sign for living_streets, in some cases they are implemented through normal residential streets with reduced speed limits and different road building arrangements (e.g. no sidewalks and all surface is shared) and the common mapping practice in those countries is to use living_street for these situations. Anyway, if your preferred solution is pedestrian + motor_vehicle=yes, it is entirely fine and I will now do the change.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-13 07:45:20+00:00): Other countries don't matter here. How it's used in HK has always been listed on the guidelines, which you should check before arguing. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road#Classifications
Most documented countries without such a class say use `=residential` not `=living_street` too https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=living_street#National_specialities
Kovoschiz (2026-05-11 18:28:42+00:00): Please don't add English `name=` or `name:en=` if it's not official or commonly used. It could be wrong already. File name is personal, and not a justification.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-11 18:29:18+00:00): Ie don't add your own translations. This applies to both this and original edit.
vbertola (2026-05-12 01:24:23+00:00): I understand all official names in HK are bilingual and are generally some form of translation of each other, so there should be an English name for this public sculpture as well. Indeed the first name:en was wrong (it was before I found out the official guidelines) so I noticed it and changed it to match the Chinese name; is the official English name different? Also, I did not originally add the French name but I changed it to match the other two: it is generally common all over the world, and especially in countries that use non-Latin scripts, to find translations of the official name of tourist attractions into additional unofficial languages, as it makes the map easier to use for people who speak that language. A lot of end-users (especially French, Spanish and Russian, in my experience) will just add those translations from their apps, they are not necessary but do not harm anyone as long as they match the POI.
kingkingHK (2026-05-12 03:00:43+00:00): @vbertola the problem is that you failed to rule out the possibility that this is truly monolingual. It is also possible to have no official names, or a monolingual official name. It is also bad form to add personal translations in `name=`.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-12 18:02:26+00:00): 1. This problem being common worldwide doesn't mean it's correct 
2. Apps can machine-translate them if it's needed, and they want to do it 
OSM doesn't have a format for distinguishing personal translations established. `description=` is safest.
vbertola (2026-05-13 00:24:33+00:00): It is not a problem at all. "name[:xx]" is not necessarily the official name of something, it is what is written on signs and/or how a map user would call the place in their language. If you take any major city (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/71525 ) it will have names in dozens or languages, of which typically only one or two are official. All the others are unofficial translations that are in use in each language. Same for major tourist attractions (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73227488 ). Official names, if necessary, can go into the "official_name" tag, but "name"s are based on usage. Now, one could argue that in this case only the French user who came up with that name is using it, and he made it up. But per se, it is not wrong to add names in non-official languages.
As for the English name, it seems unlikely to me that there is none. How do non-Chinese speakers call that sculpture in English when they see it? This is what should go in the English part of the name. Can we find any source stating a different name than the translation of the Chinese one?
Kovoschiz (2026-05-13 07:42:35+00:00): I said "if it's not official or commonly used"
This is about the definition of `name=`
This doesn't seem to have any popularity to get commonness. Again, such `name:*=` existing worldwide doesn't mean they must be correct.
渤海西岸 (2026-05-11 04:43:27+00:00): 七年前的版本1就这样了
chris66 (2026-05-15 10:12:35+00:00): Hi,
bitte nicht blind korrigieren.
Die Webseite existiert nicht mehr, da der Laden geschlossen wurde.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/124101551/history/7
b-jazz (2026-05-15 15:13:24+00:00): Thanks for the report. I've been meaning to fix this for a couple years now: https://gitlab.com/b-jazz/https_all_the_things/-/work_items/8

It's raining today, maybe I'll poke at it a little bit and see if the fix is trivial.
Veteraharv (2026-06-01 10:10:33+00:00): The entire World Trade Center complex should not have been tagged with building=yes ; it's not a building in itself but a lot of land _with_ a building (and some parking lots) in it.
Wildsharky (2026-05-12 11:30:32+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:182538681
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:46:40+00:00): Reverted
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:47:01+00:00): Reverted
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:47:17+00:00): Reverted
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:47:36+00:00): Reverted
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:47:51+00:00): Reverted
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:48:05+00:00): Reverted
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:48:36+00:00): Reverted
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-20 07:48:48+00:00): Reverted
rangomadzy (2026-05-23 14:45:36+00:00): Hello,
  If I have done anything to do with this establishment and it was a mistake... I am sorry and that is why I asked for a review by yourselves.
 But with the information about the resort and the icon, I was sure that part would be ok.
  I marked a grass and dirt road as the sign out the front even I missed it.
  Keen to keep learning about what is right and wrong when plotting roads etc.
MappingMore (2026-05-12 06:56:31+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:182540165
Udarian (2026-05-11 23:25:34+00:00): it is much preferable to wait to tag sidewalks on roads once they are already separately mapped and then tag with sidewalk:*=separate.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
BCNorwich (2026-05-12 04:54:32+00:00): Duplicated paths into the river removed.
Vandana@28 (2026-05-12 06:25:05+00:00): The river location was not within our working area. However, thank you for bringing it to our attention
TuomoSe (2026-05-11 18:41:35+00:00): Ratsutori on Leppävaarankadun pohjoispuolella. Miksi lisäsit duplikaatin ja vielä väärälle puolelle Leppävaarankatua?
TuomoSe (2026-05-12 16:55:10+00:00): Poistin duplikaatin
liljaadeliina (2026-07-24 11:47:52+00:00): Kiitos kun poistit sen.
TuomoSe (2026-05-11 18:47:14+00:00): Miksi lisäsit Ruusutorpanpuiston toiseen kertaan? Ja miksi muutit pienen polun cyclewayksi?
TuomoSe (2026-05-12 17:00:09+00:00): Poistin Ruusutorpanpuiston duplikaatin ja muutin pienen polun takaisin pathiksi
Sakari_N (2026-05-15 08:33:57+00:00): Moi,

nyt datasta saa sen kuvan että Porintien nimi vaihtuu Saikkalanjoen sillaksi ja takaisin. Olisi parempi käyttää name= tiennimelle ja bridge:name=* sillalle (tai sitten pirtää erillisen man_made=bridge objetkin.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#Naming
jandar22 (2026-06-25 19:09:37+00:00): Hi, I see a lot of these segments were given "ref=Old US 421" where they are already tagged with "old_ref=US 421". I would think these are redundant and the latter is preferable since it's pre-categorized as a historical reference code. Please remove the "ref=*" tags, or let me know if there is a good reason for having both.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-25 19:25:50+00:00): From what I understand, old_ref=* was originally for historic road numbers that have since been removed. On paper, this is perfect for a situation like this. Unfortunately, the tag is now used to store any old highway number, even if there's no trace of the old_ref's existence. That's not to mention that old_ref=* (rightfully so) rarely appears to end users, except once when I tagged a track road that used to be part of a freeway as old_ref= CC 215, and a rectangular "215" appeared in the Locator Overlay. I figured that a name=* of "Old Highway x" was kind of redundant, so I went with ref= "Old Hwy X" as a good enough compromise, but the community disagrees. I will remove these "ref= Old US 421" tags now.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-25 19:28:41+00:00): Done, I have removed them here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184603446
jandar22 (2026-06-25 19:48:57+00:00): Totally agree about old_ref=* being overused, it does seem like a lot of roads have it regardless of whether it's been reassigned a new route number or not. In general I fall in the camp of believing any historical or outdated data doesn't really need to be in OSM, although I know that isn't a perfect consensus in the community when it comes to some things like railroads. But definitely at least it should be siloed with the relevant tags that categorize it as out of date if so.

Fwiw on this particular road it looks like it does have a signed local name of "Joseph M. Hunt Jr. Expressway", taken from Bing Streetside at the intersection with Alamance Church Road (approx 36.041157, -79.772608), so with a little more validation that could be a good identifier for the road as name=*.

Anyways thanks for the quick response and change!
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-25 19:59:25+00:00): As I'm not a local of North Carolina (nor have I ever been there), I'll leave it to the locals/the community to decide on the best name for this road. Clearly, it's not "Secondary Route 3549" since it's unsigned, nor is it "Old US 421" since I have yet to see an "OLD" banner on top of a US Highway shield (and both of those "names" are road numbers anyway, which should go into unsigned_ref=* and old_ref=* respectively, and they are).
felipeeugenio (2026-05-17 12:41:23+00:00): Hello. The access and the exit of the road are one-way, but the road itself is not.

regards
LuvuaRiver (2026-05-19 14:50:33+00:00): Hi felipeeugenio, 
Thank you for reaching out and letting me know, I will defer to your edits.
Taya_S (2026-05-12 10:14:55+00:00): I have deleted this monster relation and restored the node.

The previous MP was deliberately removed in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-mexico-object-rendering-of-large-seas/7466/

Changes to the gulf such as these should not be made without community agreement.

Best regards,  
Taya Snijder
Taya_S (2026-05-12 10:35:56+00:00): Ah, and of course a name change. of `name=Golfo de México` to `name=Golfo de México / Gulf of Mexico` Please point me to where that was discussed?
NyanSten (2026-05-18 01:38:12+00:00): Hi, OK, I didn't know this was rejected before.

The name change is following the established way of naming features bordered by multiple countries: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Shared_boundary_features
as used e.g. by the Adriatic sea: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4348295445 or the Sea of Japan: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9854021782
rajdhani (2026-05-12 06:08:45+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 182538819
bxl-forever (2026-05-11 08:25:00+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for the information.  However, I am afraid this is not a correct way to map things.

1) Please try to keep buildings and places separately. Merging them is done only in very rare cases, not for any ordinary business. → Talking Breads should just be a floating point inside the building and not "be the building".  Most small businesses have other functions, have residents.  More generally, a building does not have a name, only a business has.

2) Do not add postcodes and city names along with addresses. We do not do this any longer in Belgium.  Any point inside this area https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3479696 is already automatically recognized as having postcode 3080.  You should not expect that we "forgot" to add the postcode and that by doing so you will help us; it was a deliberate design choice to keep the database clean.  Because OSM is a geographical database, we do not write the same information multiple times.

Thanks a lot, and happy mapping.
Herman Lee (2026-05-12 09:33:19+00:00): 您好，
在社区中有人讨论了一下来源的问题，顺便对您最近的修改集进行了一下回顾，发现有些奇怪的编辑，譬如：“绿洲小城镇”，似乎并非一个合适的用于建制的名称，可以使用locality，而“横梁镇”的lable缺消失了。虽然之前的用户可能在编辑集中的来源标注有误，但是作为非破坏性编辑，退回前最好进行核查，之前的退回中，将“明花镇”也进行了退回。如果您有时间的话，可以对这些地方进行回顾性的更改，并确认这些地名属于最新的状态。
如果需要和大家交流，可以前往非官方的中国社区群聊（qq或tg  t.me/osmchina）进行交流，或者在osm community（https://community.openstreetmap.org/）中与社区的成员进行交流。
谢谢