piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
DaDapperMapper (2025-05-09 18:32:00+00:00): Hi there muralito!

Hey Daniel!
you can now respond to the osm user with this comment!
I found a Mapillary image from 2025 (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-34.895404&lng=-56.1650416&z=17&pKey=1652507628787950&focus=photo&x=0.2171527640423942&y=0.5445230616269534&zoom=2.1064483111565995) that shows a No U-Turn sign at this location. I intended to reference Mapillary in the changeset but inadvertently left it out. I’ll be more aware to include such citations going forward. Have a nice day!
muralito (2025-05-10 22:23:53+00:00): Thank you.
Sylabowy Kot (2025-06-01 09:29:57+00:00): Obiecuję, że zrobię tak z resztą na północ od torów i na wschód  od ul. 1 Maja.
Filip009 (2025-05-09 07:41:36+00:00): Zdravím, v popise objektu "description" ja napísané, že je to bývalá vodná elektráreň. Nemyslím, že je potrebné dávať jej ešte aj názov.
VladKac (2025-05-26 05:51:47+00:00): Zdravím,
Podľa popisu Name tag-u je vyplnenie takéhoto údaju povolené pretože "Vodná elektráreň" je pôvodný aj súčasný názov bodovy.
Údaje description tag-u nie sú viditelné priamo na mape.
Na označenie funkčnosti slúži zrejme iný tag napr.: disused.
----------------------------------------
V okolí je viacej budov, ktoré pôvodný účel nespĺňaju ale majú pôvodné meno napr.: Liečebný dom Machnáč, ktorý je hneď vedľa.
Okolo (v súčasnosti bývalej) vodnej elektrárne som išiel niekoľko krát a z mapy som sa nedozvedel, že je tam takáto (technicky unikátna) budova pretože nebol vyplnený Name štítok.
LaLinea (2025-05-08 20:39:50+00:00): UPS, Fehler!  Korrektur ...
source = https://osm.org/note/4736953
silversurfer83 (2025-05-08 20:57:51+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap

danke, dass du hilfst die Datenbank aktuell zu halten.

Du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand deine Änderung ansieht.

Grundsätzlich sieht das OK aus. Es fehlt aber noch eine Menge an Eigenschaften (tags). Am leichtesten findest du heraus, was zu tun ist, wenn du dir die Gleise im Gebäude direkt nördlich genau ansiehst und dabei in der linken Spalte auch den Abschnitt "Eigenschaften" aufklappst.

Bei Fragen immer raus damit und viel Spaß an der Karte
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166002799
Vinzenz Mai (2025-05-28 15:40:22+00:00): Hi,

diese Straßen waren bereits alle erfasst. Es ist ein Fehler, diese erneut zu erfassen - das ist kein Routenplaner.

Beste Grüße
Vinzenz
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-08 21:00:45+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1384785677

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
RedAuburn (2025-05-08 21:00:09+00:00): see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4748509
eggie (2025-05-09 05:31:50+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   Je hoeft in OSM geen adressen toe te voegen aan gebouwomtrekken. Er zijn al adresnodes. Ik pas het weer even aan.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Slabbie112 (2025-05-09 05:43:48+00:00): Dank voor de feedback. Het was niet mijn bedoeling om een nieuw gebouw aan te geven. Ik probeer om een locatie van een restaurant toe te voegen. Namelijk Soek Thai. Die snackbar die nu op ons te zien is bestaat niet meer en vgm zit Soek Thai nu daar, al klopt de locatie op de kaart niet helemaal. De locatie van de snackbar is een normaal woonhuis. Soek Thai zit echter op de echt op de hoek(check andere map apps)
eggie (2025-05-09 05:50:21+00:00): Oke.. Je kunt de adresnode met Soek Thai gewoon verschuiven naar de juiste locatie.
Zodra een adresnode meer info heeft zie je het huisnummer niet meer. Dat is normaal.
Dus even het restaurant versleoen.. dan uploaden. Dan geduld of een paar keer ctrl-f5 .  Je cache leegmaken voor versnelde rendering.
Je blijft anders heel lang de oude situatie zien.
Succes.
LordGarySugar (2026-07-04 21:38:02+00:00): Seems that quite a few unsplit semidetached buildings have been assigned uprns in this changeset, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121993804 as just one example and there are quite a few in the vicinity.
philipcullen (2026-07-04 21:41:59+00:00): Thanks for pointing this out - I'll review them over the next few weeks.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-08 21:21:16+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/11612210728
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/54522955

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
silversurfer83 (2025-05-09 23:40:03+00:00): Hi :)

geh mal auf wiki.osm.org und such nach "layer" und  "building_passage" und dann pass mal diesen Betriebshof entsprechend an.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166003570
eggie (2025-05-09 05:36:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback. Alle begin is moeilijk.. Svp geen adresgegevens op gebouwomtrekken zetten. Er zijn al adresnodes. Ik pas het weer aan . 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
DaveF (2025-05-09 16:41:48+00:00): Hi
if you do any more could you reuse the existing linear platform. Retaining the history of objects is often useful for validation/QA purposes.
BCNorwich (2025-05-10 05:20:27+00:00): Hi, Way: 1385031787 removed as it duplicates Way: 1384793219
phodgkin (2025-10-25 17:33:46+00:00): I'm a bit concerned about this edit.

Most importantly, we are not allowed to use Ordnance Survey maps as a source for OSM.

Secondly, we use `highway=unclassified` for public roads (adopted highways), even if a single lane, rather than `highway=service` (I'm looking here as Roughley Bank).

I really think the changes based on OS maps should be reverted.
JassKurn (2025-10-27 19:16:35+00:00): phodgking, we are allowed to use Ordnance Survey maps if they have the appropriate licence. There are two available as background layers in the iD editor used to make this edit. 

 "Ordnance Survey map" is commonly is used to refer to the Explorer & Landranger maps that can not be used for OSM mapping. If that's the case then the this changeset needs to be fixed.
zorglubu (2025-05-10 11:01:15+00:00): Bonjour,

Le nom de l'espèce pour un arbre ne doit pas être porté par l'attribut "name" mais par l'attribut "species" ou encore "species:fr", comme indiqué ici : 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:natural%3Dtree#Exemples_d'attribution

Il est important pour la qualité de la carte de transférer ces noms d'espèce dans le bon attribut.
Merci de bien vouloir faire ces modifications, et bonne continuation sur OSM.
ExoticApple57 (2025-05-10 11:54:13+00:00): Bonjour,

Merci pour votre retour.

Effectivement je fais souvent en deux temps, je mets d’abord l’espèce dans le nom quand je suis sur le terrain et que j’ai identifié l’arbre avec PlantNet, et quand je suis chez moi j’ajoute le genre, l’espèce, le taxon et les liens wikipédia et wikidata car c’est plus long à faire et il y a quelques automatismes dans l’interface Web qu’il n’y a pas dans Go Map. Je n’ai pas encore eu le temps pour les arbres de cette zone.

Si le genre et l’espèce sont bien renseignés, faut-il tout de même que je supprime le nom courant ? J’ai vu que cela permet de les identifier facilement sur la carte.

Merci à vous
zorglubu (2025-05-10 14:16:02+00:00): Merci pour la réponse également.
Je comprends l'idée de noter rapidement et prendre son temps ensuite. Mais il faut ensuite supprimer ce name même si "pour vous" ça fait joli ;-)
Il faut laisser les moteurs de rendu décider ce qui est affiché ou non, sinon on peut imaginer quelqu'un mettant dans name : "maison individuelle", "garage", "immeuble" parce que ce sujet l'intéresse.

Le "name" peut par contre être justifié pour un arbre remarquable possédant un vrai nom du style "Chêne du centenaire", "Arbre de la fraternité", connu a minima de la population locale.

Bien cordialement.
ExoticApple57 (2025-05-10 14:49:36+00:00): Entendu, je comprends, je vais refaire une passe pour supprimer les names.
ExoticApple57 (2025-05-10 19:45:51+00:00): Je viens de faire une passe de correction sur tous les arbres que j'ai ajoutés (sauf oubli) -> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166084045#map=13/48.80643/2.38523
Carto'Cité (2025-05-27 13:26:41+00:00): Bonjour ExoticApple57,
Merci beaucoup pour la précision de la signalétique C115 sur la promenade de la Vanne (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155613286 et autres)

Est-ce que tu sais si c'est une signalétique qui a été ajoutée récemment ?

Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
ExoticApple57 (2025-05-27 13:50:54+00:00): Bonjour,
En effet c’est tout récent, la promenade de la Vanne a été réaménagée par tronçon, la dernière partie vient d’ouvrir le 24/05, ce qui fait une nouvelle voie verte de 1,5 km de long qui relie Cachan à Chevilly-Larue.
On peut trouver des panneaux C115 à plusieurs endroits du parcours, en pratique c’est une voie en compacté de 4m de large, on peut juste déplorer que les trottoirs n’aient pas été rendus affleurants sur la plupart des intersections de rues.
A noter que l’intersection avec la belle piste cyclable devant le cimetière de Chevilly-Larue est absente (trottoirs relevés et terre-plein central), ce qui oblige à faire tout un détour ou à passer par le trottoir sous l’A6.
ExoticApple57 (2025-05-27 13:52:26+00:00): *3m de large.
Carto'Cité (2025-07-08 12:06:06+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci beaucoup pour ton retour détaillé. Je vois que tu maîtrises bien la thématique vélo. Est-ce que tu as déjà essayé JOSM ? Avec le rendu des aménagements cyclables c'est vraiment beaucoup plus puissant que iD pour contribuer sur cette thématique.
N’hésite pas si tu as des questions ou des remarques.
À bientôt.
Charles de Carto’Cité
ExoticApple57 (2025-07-08 12:49:33+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci Charles pour ton retour, j’avais tenté très rapidement mais je l’avais trouvé assez complexe, je réessaierai à l’occasion. 
Bonne journée,
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-08 22:21:01+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12608035650
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/943444496

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
❤️‍🔥 (2025-05-09 10:04:08+00:00): hi, if there's a new address, could you please create a new point, instead of repurposing an existing point and dragging it far away? thanks !
DiogoBaptista98 (2025-05-09 14:22:41+00:00): segundo o comunicado a M39 vai pelo centro de bicesse e não pela rua da fonte https://mobi.cascais.pt/aviso/alteracoes-percursos-e-horarios-linhas-m37-m39-m40-m41-e-m44
:-} (2025-05-15 09:10:20+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12821335638#map=19/52.251113/20.884675&layers=N
W tym miejscu nie ma żadnej bramy ani przejścia. Normalny mur tam jest
Sylabowy Kot (2025-05-15 17:52:47+00:00): O, dzięki za zwrócenie uwagi. Od strony Kocjana nigdy nie zwracałem większej uwagi na ten ogród. Orientujesz się może przy okazji gdzie w tym kompleksie jest ROD "Eureka"? Widziałem na stronach ogrodów, że jest gdzieś tutaj taki oddzielny byt, ale nie chciałem się zapuszczać do środka. Brama główna ze stróżówką odstrasza :/
:-} (2025-05-18 17:09:55+00:00): Ten ROD Eureka to jest taka zagwostka bo w terenie żadnych tabliczek jego nie ma tylko są tabliczki o ROD Kasprzaka ale odkąd kiedy powstały te działki (czyli jakoś '69-'72 rok) to było tak ,że ten ROD Eureka znajdował się po prawej stronie tej głównej alejki działek (Aleja Spacerowa) patrząc na mapie. Po tamtej stronie właśnie jest nierówność powierzchniowa działek (po tamtej stronie działki mają po 150, 200 i 300 m²)a po lewej stronie (czyli tam gdzie ROD Kasprzaka, patrząc na mapie od Alejki Spacerowej) wszystkie działki mają tę samą powierzchnię (czyli po 300 m²). W skrócie te RODosy są łączone ale większość działkowców całe te działki uznaje za ROD Kasprzaka
Sylabowy Kot (2025-05-19 22:37:10+00:00): Dzięki za pomoc. W sumie podobny przypadek widziałem na ROD Czerniaków, gdzie nie widząc mapy musiałem na czuja przeanalizować podziały między numeracjami. Tutaj natomiast nadal nie potrafię zobaczyć, gdzie w tych obszarach co mówisz miało by się zmieścić 40 działek (informacja z jednego artykułu) w jakiś spójny kształt. Tu bez podobnej analizy to się jednak nie da.
GV_Eschenburg (2025-05-12 09:17:07+00:00): Hallo Akino,

das ist leider nicht ganz korrekt.

Ja, das Ortsschild sagt Eibelshausen, und allgemein wird das gesamte Gewerbegebiet auch als „Gewerbegebiet Eibelshausen“ bezeichnet. Organisatorisch, politisch sowie melde-, gewerbe- und baurechtlich gehören diese Gebäude allerdings zu Eiershausen. Auf zwei Ortsschilder wurde verzichtet. Es wäre hier zu klären, was für OSM eher relevant ist.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Gemeindeverwaltung Eschenburg
akino_germany (2025-05-13 15:28:37+00:00): Hallo,

für OSM ist die postalische Zuordnung relevant um Straßennamen die in mehreren Ortsteilen existieren zu unterscheiden. 
Die politisch administrative Einordnung ist hier irrelevant.
Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:addr:suburb

Gruß
Akino
afgb1977 (2025-05-15 07:11:10+00:00): Por favor revise este CS con detenimiento, usted creo edificaciones sobre edificaciones creadas 45 minutos antes. 
En especial revisar=
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/6.098854/-76.577007&layers=D
mapeadora (2025-05-15 16:04:30+00:00): Ai.. error de guardado. Corrijo. Gracias
Hufkratzer (2025-05-09 21:13:35+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32909501 does not look like a horse riding centre (leisure=horse_riding); it looks like a horse riding arena, and in this case, according to the wiki, should be tagged with leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian, like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230577556
The arena seems to belong to Tower Farm Riding Stables (https://www.towerfarm.org/) which could be mapped as a horse riding centre (leisure=horse_riding).
Examples for other horse riding centres in this region:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401986875
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33103042
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a#Riding_centre_(equestrian)
MxxCon (2025-05-10 03:03:24+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you add way/1384807804 when there's no crosswalk there?

For way way/1083318697 you added "footway:crossing:markings=zebra". I don't think that's a thing...🤔
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166006477
VLD280 (2025-05-12 18:10:51+00:00): Good morning MxxCon,

Thank you for reaching out regarding my edits. Regarding way 1384807804, I added this crossing (https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1384807804) based on two separate sources. The zebra paint crosswalk can be seen in the New York State Orthoimagery from 2024 (https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8234349.866142837,4950433.133119537,-8233781.067162998,4950669.908757864&Layers=2024_cache,2023_cache,2022_cache,2021_cache) and in the Esri World Imagery from 2024 (https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=27982&mapCenter=-73.96871%2C40.57964%2C19). I felt confident adding the crossing as both sources were relatively recent, but local knowledge is always superior. If you are aware that the crosswalk has been removed, then I definitely appreciate the correction.

Regarding the "footway:crossing:markings=zebra" tag I used on way 1083318697, I added this tag based on the OSM wiki page for the “crossing:markings” tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:markings). The tag in question, along with the related tag  "cycleway:crossing:markings=*", is referenced under the ‘More Difficult Cases’ section heading. Since the two crossing types were already represented by a single feature, it seemed appropriate to make use of this tag rather than alter the existing geometry.

I hope my explanations here were able to answer your questions. If I can explain or clarify anything else, please let me know. Feedback and advice from experienced local editors is always appreciated!

Happy mapping,
Isaac
VLD280
MxxCon (2025-05-12 19:33:16+00:00): I think you were correct regarding that crosswalk. When I looked at that spot in Esri I didn't see it, but when I zoomed out a bit it showed up. I think that's what tripped me up. But it's also close to where I live so I'll confirm it later today.

And you are correct regarding cycleway:crossing:markings tag as well. Some of these OSM tags feel like shoehorned solutions. 😵‍💫
VLD280 (2025-05-14 17:12:26+00:00): I’m glad I was able to answer your questions. I agree that those tags can seem overspecific, but they offer a good alternative to disturbing established geometry, and I think their usage will increase as bicycle infrastructure becomes more distinct from pedestrian infrastructure. Also, thanks for taking another look at the crosswalk, and especially for taking the time to ground-truth the area. In person surveys are far more valuable than any imagery. I agree that Esri World Imagery (and MapBox imagery as well) can be deceptive. They compile many different image sets depending on locations and zoom, so there can sometimes be significant differences depending on which image set you see. I have found the Esri Wayback website (https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=27982&mapCenter=-74.00723%2C40.71352%2C11) to be very useful, because you can just click on the imagery to see when it was captured. I often use it to determine the approximate capture time of other imagery sources. 

Thanks again for reaching out, and please don’t hesitate to let me know if you have any other thoughts on my edits!

Happy Mapping,
Isaac
VLD280
BCNorwich (2025-05-09 06:14:29+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There's four houses in that building. I've made corrections. Please check that it's now correct.

Regards Bernard
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:55:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
srbrook (2025-05-10 10:46:53+00:00): tree_lined=both is probably the correct tag as the feature is a highway. In this case, the incorrect tag is natural=tree_row . Alternatively the tree_row tag should be moved onto new ways either side of the footway.
fortera_au (2025-06-26 09:01:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:58:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-11 07:02:56+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5721245151/history has shop = builders_merchant that was added in this edit
shop=builders_merchant ? Is it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=doityourself or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=trade + https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trade%3Dbuilding_supplies ? If not, how it differs?
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:58:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 09:01:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-05-09 00:33:49+00:00): Hi, you've tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450150184 as if it's Humbug Scrub Road, it's actually part of an administrative boundary.

Same goes for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450150187 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/461801765 where you've added the maxspeed tag on ways that are part of a boundary.

I think it's best to revert this and to apply these changes again on the correct ways, since you've moved the boundary ways.
fortera_au (2025-06-26 09:00:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:53:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:53:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:59:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:54:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 09:01:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
josmougn (2025-05-14 23:06:27+00:00): IL y a un seul passage piéton à cet endroit, ce point est en trop : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12821417971
VictorIE (2025-05-10 02:24:47+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1382425682

This seems to be a vehicular access point.
MapMenMan (2025-05-10 05:49:06+00:00): If it is, it certainly isn't in regular use. The area it leads to is exclusively for pedestrian use and is blocked by a fixed concrete flowerbed, which can be seen on this page https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/20503284/wandesford-quay-cork-city-cork-city-cork

The concrete tracks inlayed with the paving stones of the tunnel may mean that vehicles used it at some point, but the curb is not lowered, nor damaged, and there is no sign saying the gate is in constant use (like almost every other vehicular access point in the city) I wouldn't say this should be mapped as it was previously with a highway tag
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-05-10 18:26:42+00:00): Hello. Why did you change the name of these roads? I used the on-the-ground rule for the road's names and classifications. Is there something I'm missing? Thank you.
Joseph R P (2025-05-11 01:00:44+00:00): Airport Bypass is not the official name of this road, but rather just a description of its role through the airport. Its official name is Paradise Road after it passes through the interchange, according to signs posted on the side of the overpass visible from Flight Path Ave and the sign at the intersection with Russell Road.
Kovoschiz (2025-05-09 09:00:43+00:00): 1. `=permit` doesn't mean "except permit". It means always granted ones. Exceptionally and case-by-case ones are `=private` . 
2. The Au Tau roundabout flyover is the through route of Caste Peak Rd. Therefore it's not made a `=*_link` .
Kovoschiz (2025-05-09 09:03:57+00:00): 1. `vehicle=no` has already been added
CurlingMan13 (2025-05-17 21:37:26+00:00): Changeset reverted in part or full.  We use access tags to denote if something is private.  I have added private access tags.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166409707
tastrax (2025-05-12 11:22:28+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers