piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ralley (2025-01-14 04:32:08+00:00): Additionally in this and many other of your change sets you are wrongly changing the phone number format from E.164.  Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone
takeos (2025-02-07 02:14:11+00:00): Hi, it seems you added a lot of cycleways but they are actually sidewalk where bicycles are allowed as exceptional - even with "bicycle" markings on the sidewalk they are basically supposed (or "designated") to go on the road along with motor traffic. If you've ever made similar changes could you revert them?
Thanks.
JacksonDavey (2025-02-07 08:20:52+00:00): Hi there, my basis for calling this a shared path with bicycle-pedestrian segregation is based on the "Dedicated cycleway and footway" as shown in one of the examples on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway. Any other areas where I have added shared paths or dedicated cycle paths has been where they are similarly labelled to have some degree of separation between bicycles and pedestrians. 

As far as I can understand under Japanese cycling rules, you are correct in that cyclists can only use footpaths when the road is unsafe, but cyclists should use dedicated cycle paths instead of the road when they are available (as shown by https://japan.stripes.com/travel/know-rules-for-riding-bicycle-in-japan.html#:~:text=In%20principle%2C%20cyclists%20should%20ride,paths%20when%20they%20are%20available. ("Cyclists should use designated bicycle paths when they are available", & "Cyclists should use the lanes marked for bicycles on sidewalks or roads when they are available")). Because of this, where I have changed footpaths to shared paths, I have only done so where there is clear indication of a cycle path such as in the case you have highlighted, or the road is clearly so unsafe (multi-lane with high speed limits) that cyclists will always use the shared path. 

If I have missed something in my reasoning, please let me know as I do want to be accurate, but to me it seems that this is significantly different from a regular sidewalk, and the street appears to be designed for cyclists to use the designated cycle facilities as they have separation from pedestrians (although it is paint only).
takeos (2025-02-07 13:52:16+00:00): Thank you for providing more details. I have no objection to segregated tags on roads with white lines to separate cyclists and pedestrians.

There are two points. The first is that the tag cycleway is for separate paths, as stated in the documentation. Even in the shared path example you showed, the paths are separated. The path mapped as cycleway in this chnage is structurally part of the road and adjacent to the carriageway, so it should be sidewalk.
The second point is about the bicycle=designated designation. You quote the sentence ‘Cyclists should use the lanes marked for bicycles on sidewalks or roads when they are available’, which means exactly that: bicycle lanes on the roadway if they are on the roadway and bicycle lanes on the sidewalk if they are on the sidewalk. This does not alter the principle that cyclists should ride on the carriageway. It is also true that cyclists ride on the footpath on roads where the carriageway is dangerous, as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated says ‘Designation does not make any statement about whether the way is actually usable for the designated purpose.’ Also, the area with the bicycle symbol is called the ’普通自転車指定通行部分’, but this is still part of the footpath and pedestrians have priority. Please see https://www.keishicho.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/kotsu/jikoboshi/bicycle/menu/rule.html for details (sorry I couldn't find english resources, I hope auto-translation will help you).

Japanese traffic laws related to bicycles are so complicated that only a few avid cyclists can fully understand and obey. So some osm users in japan made up the guideline for tagging cycling infrastructure https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:highway%3Dcycleway#%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%A7%E3%81%AE%E8%A7%A3%E9%87%88 so please read it through.

Anyway it's good to have this conversation with you and please let me know if you have further questions.
JacksonDavey (2025-02-07 18:20:12+00:00): Oh I see, so any shared paths along a roadway should be a sidewalk with the tags “highway: footway”, and “bicycle: yes” rather than designated? Also a shared path with some degree of segregation but not enough to be a seperate cycleway from the sidewalk such as this changeset should simply be a sidewalk with the same tags i’ve already been using instead of a shared path? (I’m using the iD editor which has presets which is what I refer to when I mean sidewalk, shared path, bike path, etc, and I’m aware that that is different from other editors so may cause some confusion).

If that is the case that I’m understanding the guide correctly I’ll start on modifying my changes I’ve made here and in other places, of course it will take some time. Thanks for clarifying :)
takeos (2025-02-08 10:05:06+00:00): You sound perfect to me :-) Though I couldn't find "Shared Path" or "Bike Path" preset in my iD editor (I don't know why... I changed the language setting to English but what I get entering "path" text are "Foot Path" "Cycle Path" "Cycle and Foot Path" and "Bridle Path") the basics are as you described.

If you still feel unsure please let me know when you finish a change and then I could check if everything is correct. And thank you very much for listening to me so patiently!
CoyKoi (2025-01-10 00:27:16+00:00): Kia ora Jeff, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I have reviewed this changeset and can see that it deleted a section of road in the viaduct, and moved a node of a service road at VTNZ at the Strand. It seems to me that these were accidental changes, so I have reverted the changes with my changeset 161188401.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161188029
Jeff Ghazally (2025-01-10 00:30:21+00:00): KiaOra yes this was a mistake sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for fixing my mistake. Much appreciated.

Best
Jeff
dcapillae (2025-01-10 05:42:44+00:00): Buenos días.

El edificio aquí solo tiene un nivel. Se puede comprobar físicamente, en imágenes a pie de calle y en los mapas del Catastro.

Atentamente,
Daniel Capilla
Fizzie-DWG (2025-01-27 02:12:59+00:00): DWG revert - Google Maps used as Source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161801463
cubbe8 (2025-01-11 05:18:29+00:00): This is a trunk road based on 2021 classification guidelines and MassGIS functional classification.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#State-specific_classification_standards

https://geo-massdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/functional-classification
cubbe8 (2025-01-11 05:18:51+00:00): Trunk roads should also not end at state lines
silversurfer83 (2025-01-10 20:42:03+00:00): Moin joel :)

an Straßen wie diesen kannst du guten Gewissens die Adresse raten. Hinterlass einfach zusätzlich an jedem Objekt, wo du geraten hast (es gibt ja ein Muster für Adressen) den Hinweis "fixme=Adresse interpoliert". 

Und noch ein kleiner Tip: Wenn du ein rechteckiges Objekt haben möchtest, dann tipp nach der Auswahl der Eigenschaften noch auf die Taste "Q". Das macht schön rechte Winkel.

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161188132
richlv (2025-01-10 07:25:22+00:00): Thanks, "operator" remains as Elenger - is that correct?
Satelis (2025-01-10 07:30:06+00:00): Yes, Elenger is right name for operator.
richlv (2025-01-10 07:44:48+00:00): Great, thanks.
HellMap (2025-01-10 12:11:27+00:00): Hi,

It looks like you used Google as a source for this name? Please note that we cannot legally use Google Maps or any similar copyrighted product for this.

I am looking at https://elenger.lv/ieguldot-2-5-miljonus-eiro-elenger-atklaj-pirmo-saules-elektrostaciju-latvija/ to confirm the name and I do not see this name used. It's a solar plant in Nica, yes, but "Solar Nica" appears to be the name of the company "SIA Solar Nica" owned by Elenger, not the solar park itself.
Satelis (2025-01-10 13:29:45+00:00): Thank you for the correct source link instead of google maps!
Electricity Distribution system operator “Sadales tīkls AS” is using a name “SOLAR NICA SES” for this PV park (SES in Latvian means Solar Electrical Station).
Elenger is naming their PV parks in the same names as these daughter companies.
HellMap (2025-01-10 14:06:58+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. I guess it makes sense to keep it as "Solar Nice" rather than "Nices SES" (like the rest in Latvia at the moment, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28138140) or "Solar Nice SES" ("solar" twice). I guess this is the first case where there is "Solar" in the name, so adding "SES" seems a bit silly. And since that's the daughter company name.
richlv (2025-01-10 20:23:06+00:00): Nice, not Nice - right?
HellMap (2025-01-10 20:28:53+00:00): I love how you misspelled it when pointing out a misspelling. But, yes, "Nica" with "a". Terrible word to spell between two languages. And don't get me started on auto-correct.
richlv (2025-01-11 10:41:22+00:00): Harr, indeed :D
Was in a rush, sorry about that.
Satelis (2025-01-11 11:14:22+00:00): Hi,
Please keep the name simple as “Solar Nica”.
Idea for the name of solar station was to represent closest most sunny Latvian village called Nīca (with “long ī”) but write it in English. When we spelling Nica, it also makes hint to sunny cost of France called Nice as in Latvian it sounds Nica (with “short i”).
ssundell (2025-02-22 09:47:07+00:00): Onko tähän joku syy, että Possiojankadulta on poistettu toinen ajorata? Ei se tietysti maailman levein rakennelma ole, mutta ajoradat ovat selvästi toisistaan erotetut koko Paasikiventien suuntaisella osuudella.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161188182
Laatikko22 (2025-02-22 12:20:33+00:00): Moro, käytin ilmakuvana Tampereen ilmakuvakoontia jonka perusteella näytti ettei kaistoja ole eroteltu. Ilmakuva toki rakentamisajalta joten voi olla väärässä, mikäli tosiasiassa ovat eroteltu toki voin korjata tien.
ssundell (2025-02-25 10:14:02+00:00): Joo, tuossa on tosiaan kaistat eroteltu toisistaan; ei maailman leveimmällä erottelullla, mutta on siinä erottelukaista ja tolpat välissä. Voin piirrellä tuon uusiksi, kun tuolta puuttuu muutenkin liikenneympyrän ohittavat oikaisukaistat.
Nathan_A_RF (2025-01-11 18:06:44+00:00): I don't think this is the best way to tag this. Either maxspeed:variable or maxspeed:conditional, not both. Also, maxspeed:type relates to default speed limit, so should be GB:nsl_single if default is still 60.
kitsee (2025-01-11 19:31:26+00:00): ok i've just fixed it
sanchi (2025-01-10 14:12:35+00:00): Hola
Hay algunas farolas eliminadas en este conjunto de cambios que creo que si existen. ¿Como lo has comprobado?
Un saludo
mapper59 (2025-01-10 18:32:38+00:00): Hola Sanchi, gracias por revisarlo.
La queja de iD en este caso fue que habían 2 falolas muy juntas (parecía solo unos centímetros de separación). En la historial vi que vienen de una importacion y por eso, creo, había la duplicación. Así que borré una y dejé la otra.
No fui a comprobarlo en el suelo, fue mapeo de sillón.
Abajo pongo los nodos borrados y en paréntesis el nodo que está todavíá.
Saludos

2904308441  (2904308440)
2904308445  (9124664040)
2904308514  (2904308515)
sanchi (2025-01-11 17:38:29+00:00): Solo me había fijado en el borrado no en que había otra repetida. Error mio. Solo puedo decir que buen trabajo
cswilson252 (2026-03-29 01:57:35+00:00): Reverting this changeset because historical railways that no longer exist and are not visible are better left for OpenHistoricalMap..

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180564579
mrpulley (2026-02-28 10:43:28+00:00): 37120625 maxspeed correct at western end, haven't checked the rest
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-10 11:53:08+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161202277
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-10 11:53:32+00:00): Please do not add test data!
Thanks.
volkerti (2025-01-10 02:22:48+00:00): This is the first time I am trying to implement a complex access restriction. At the Epsom Road end of Macaulay Rd a sign can be interpreted as: "No trucks, Mon-Fri 7am-7pm, Sat 7am-1pm, trucks over 3.7m height excepted".
I had to cut some segments of Macaulay Rd, and added two new tags to every segment between intersections with Stubbs Street and Epsom Rd, where this restriction applies.
volkerti (2025-01-10 02:23:43+00:00): When cutting, I hope the bus line 402 and cycle lane relations were unaffected.
felipeeugenio (2025-01-10 12:43:48+00:00): Hola. En Chile es muy común tener direcciónes del tipo 123-A

en OSM es addr:housenumber=123 + addr:unit=A

si es un departamento puede ser addr:flat.

en la wiki están todas las opciones.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161189672
felipeeugenio (2025-01-10 12:44:30+00:00): y en OSM está lleno de errores este ítem, por eso cada vez que encontremos uno no replicarlo. Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161189672
felipeeugenio (2025-01-10 12:45:45+00:00): Otro tema. En ID, si seleccionas todas las estructuras y usas Q, se cuadrán éstas y forman ángulos rectos. incluso ID puede detectar ángulos de 45 grados. Asi queda todo mas "cuadrado" cuando corresponde.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161189672
0x00cl (2025-01-10 19:40:25+00:00): Gracias, lo corregiré.
Me imagino que esto aplica también para los pasajes en donde todas las casas tienen el mismo numero pero letras distintas. (A,B,C, ...)
felipeeugenio (2025-01-10 21:12:58+00:00): exacto. Ya lo corregí.
saludos
Raquel Dezidério Souto (2025-01-30 00:43:44+00:00): Olá, Natan!
Grata pelo seu mapeamento.
Mas, na verdade, este é o Parque Eldorado, salvo engano, em Duque de Caxias, não em Maricá...

Observar atentamente os comentários do changeset, por causa do recurso de auto-completar (saiu com comentário igual ao anterior).
AkuAnakTimur (2025-01-10 03:27:47+00:00): Hi, do we have permission to use anything from the source you mentioned?
AkuAnakTimur (2025-01-10 03:28:11+00:00): I mean, copyright clearance and all that jazz
BCNorwich (2025-01-10 06:45:19+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately this changeset dragged lots of features out of alignment. Thus I've reverted it.

Please be careful not to damage anything.

Regards Bernard.
Supaplex (2025-01-11 02:21:04+00:00): You can convert the old single node into one of the nodes of the area, and avoiding deleting it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161190669
Emdier (2025-11-30 18:45:20+00:00): Thank you for your advice.
BCNorwich (2025-01-10 06:47:22+00:00): Fiction removed.
BCNorwich (2025-01-10 06:51:22+00:00): reverted fiction
Joseph R P (2025-01-10 17:40:08+00:00): Hello, the roads through Fredericksburg were correctly assigned their classifications per this classification page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Virginia/Highway_classification

Per the document, as well as the broad US highway classification guidelines, roads are classified based on their connectivity to places and other roads and importance in the road network. Since Route 3 BUS and US 17 BUS connect their respective mainline highways to the downtown area, primary would be the best classification for these routes. While they may appear to be residential roads as they have houses along them and a narrow, low speed construction, highway=residential is only used on streets that are used almost exclusively for accessing neighborhoods or other small streets, while William Street in particular links Route 1 and 3 and I 95 to Downtown Fredericksburg, 17/2 Business plays the same role here, linking the Downtown to the Route 3 bypass and down towards mainline Route 17 and eventually Route 301.

Traffic also plays a role in highway classification (in cooperation with other criteria). Per this map (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=bff29e1bc0fd4908b2c035fe67695088), William Street sees 11k average daily traffic while a true residential street in the area will see only about ~1k AADT.
Joseph R P (2025-01-10 17:44:47+00:00): My mistake, William Street was tagged as tertiary instead of residential. However, the tertiary tag, in an urban scenario, is typically for collector roads, which are smaller roads that serve as a through road and usually link to minor streets but are not as important as secondary and primary roads, (these two typically used for arterials and other major roadways).
AriannaL (2025-01-13 00:37:48+00:00): I see, thank you for letting me know and for the references!
BCNorwich (2025-01-10 06:51:44+00:00): fiction reverted
dpolovinkin (2025-03-01 05:05:30+00:00): hi, there are now alerts after you added this road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1349901412, not bothering? :)
dpolovinkin (2025-04-11 18:46:57+00:00): hello? please respond to the comment, I see you are active on OSM, or I'll have to find some manager in Grab and tell you about your bad edits
GrabID_MuhammadRafly (2025-05-02 03:24:01+00:00): Hi dpolovinkin, thank you for reaching out to me, and I am sorry that I missed your comments. I have rechecked my edits and fixed some topology errors. Thank you for your kind reminder. Happy Mapping!
dpolovinkin (2025-05-02 19:25:00+00:00): thanks! :)
cubbe8 (2025-01-10 19:56:41+00:00): The massgis data base has an error that shows all state route motorways as trunk roads
cubbe8 (2025-01-10 19:57:06+00:00): This road meets all motorway requirements
cubbe8 (2025-01-10 19:59:54+00:00): even route 24 is f class=2 which is completely wrong
Kovoschiz (2025-01-10 06:54:50+00:00): Refuge islands should not be changed to `=crossing` https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=traffic_island
vectorial8192 (2025-01-10 07:35:49+00:00): My apologies. It was a careless mistake while figuring out why the crossing was "partially tagged".
vectorial8192 (2025-01-10 07:38:19+00:00): Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161194537
mrpulley (2025-01-24 13:00:29+00:00): I surveyed this section of Princes Hwy at Narooma in Nov 2024 as maxspeed 50.
mrpulley (2025-02-08 03:20:06+00:00): Princes highway maxspeed reverted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162265114. I don't know maxspeed of McKoy Street, but I note it's in Victoria (so can't be from NSW Speed Data).
ilias_ (2025-01-10 13:29:41+00:00): Hi! Welcome to OSM. You made one edit in Sydney and another one in Montreal. Please keep your changesets local. Thanks!
mavl (2025-05-13 15:03:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:06:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
Warin61 (2026-02-05 01:16:07+00:00): HI
The guide is one feature = one OSM entry

So one way for the roof, layer=1
and another way for the hall? 

I have deleted the relation and tagged the outer way for the building footprint.
Bobropiton (2025-01-10 09:46:47+00:00): здравствуйте. Проясните пожалуйста, в чем заключается затруднение проезда по железной дороге?
mavl (2025-05-13 15:06:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
Fizzie-DWG (2025-01-27 02:12:54+00:00): DWG revert - Google Maps used as Source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161801461
GerdP (2026-06-04 07:17:12+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Bitte schau mal auf https://www.osm.org/node/7313082685
Da ist am Knoten ein building=commercial und ausserdem ein Umring mit building=yes und anderen Unterschieden.
AndySchulte (2026-06-04 11:37:12+00:00): ja Moin GerdP, danke dir für den Hinweis, ich habe den node entfernt.
Gruß Andy
Wulf4096 (2025-01-10 07:23:06+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM, Leineverband!

"building:levels" ist die Anzahl der Stockwerke.
In dem Gebäude sind, soweit ich's erkenne, noch weitere Firmen angesiedelt. Mit dem separaten Node https://osm.org/node/12487677068 war das also schon ganz richtig. Das "name"-Tag muss hier wieder raus.
DD1GJ (2025-01-10 19:20:18+00:00): Punkteintrag wieder hergestellt und verbessert. "Hausbesetzung" beendet.
橘ヒカリ (2025-01-10 09:42:10+00:00): 您好，感谢您对OSM的贡献！但是您的变更集中有一些错误标注，请参考https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hans:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_China
这个网页进行修改。谢谢！
紬ヴェンダース (2025-01-11 05:01:28+00:00): 已修正，thx
mavl (2025-05-13 15:03:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
Fizzie-DWG (2025-01-27 02:12:49+00:00): DWG revert - Google Maps used as Source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161801458
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-10 11:49:22+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161202144
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-10 11:50:09+00:00): #vandalism
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-10 11:49:31+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161202152
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-10 11:50:13+00:00): #vandalism
michel60 (2025-07-12 17:57:57+00:00): Bonjour,
Le Carrefour Market, ce n'est pas le même que celui du dessus (même SIRET) ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12486655850#map=19/50.283014/2.546693
Cordialement Michel
Max-Kritic (2025-07-12 18:45:23+00:00): Il y a surtout un supermarché dd trop
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-05-30 09:16:31+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatantly promotional description=*, spammy name=* and malformed address tags

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183390324
ti-lo (2025-01-10 11:51:34+00:00): THX :-)
フーヴァー　リー (2025-01-24 06:45:25+00:00): 嘉兴公交 ×
嘉善公交 √
Herman Lee (2025-03-13 18:08:52+00:00): 嘉善是嘉兴不可分割的一部分
rene78 (2025-01-10 07:22:58+00:00): I have avoided using the tag "demolished:building" as the event was unintended.
HellMap (2025-01-10 12:03:26+00:00): Sveiki,

Lūdzu ņem vērā, ka zīmējot celiņu ģeometriju, tie būs `area:highway=footway` nevis 
`highway=footway` + `area=yes`. Ar `area:highway=footway` tiek aprakstīta vienkārša celiņa precīza ģeometrija un pamata navigācija ir pati celiņa līnija. Tas būs gandrīz visiem celiņiem, ietvēm, utt. Arī `area:highway=cycleway`, `area:highway=path` utml. Savukārt ar `highway=footway` + `area=yes` apzīmē laukumus, kur nav nosakāms viens celiņa virziens un navigācija ir visā tā laukumā. Tie parasti būs retāki lieli laukumi, kur savienojas kopā vairāki celiņi un gājēju kustība ir visos virzienos.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:area:highway%3Dfootway

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway#Areas

Paldies