piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
yitimox (2026-06-18 13:55:33+00:00): Bir de O-1 otoyolunun Boğaziçi köprüsü dışındaki kısımları kavşak noktalarındaki tabelalarda bölünmüş yol olarak gözüküyor ve bisiklet vb. araçlara yasaklı görünmüyor. Zincirlikuyu-Altunizade arası dışında kalan segmentleri bölünmüş olarak işaretlemek daha makul olmaz mı?
eggie (2026-06-17 20:05:04+00:00): Hi Vanu.. In the Netherlands all addressnodes are import from the Dutch Registry.
Please don't delete these.
Don't add addresses to buildingshapes.
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2026-06-17 20:06:57+00:00): I restored the addressnode.. Removed addressinfo from buildingshape.
Gr eggie
Baloo Uriza (2026-06-21 12:33:39+00:00): Nice catch.  Though the tiger:*=* tags suggest that probably came from the 2000 US Census import initially.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184243394
Baloo Uriza (2026-06-21 12:36:31+00:00): Actually looking closer you can see the scars from where there used to be a road (mostly the drainage makes a couple low spots along the sides of where the road used to be, with the fence mostly being ever slightly west).  Wouldn't surprise me if there was a road there 25 years ago, and that's how we got it from the 2000 Census.  Looking at the history, the first edit was from Dave Hansen's Census TIGER import in 2007, so you were the first edit in 19 years!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184243394
Altts (2026-06-17 20:04:02+00:00): Esri World Imagery was also used as a source.
birimkulova (2026-06-18 14:46:47+00:00): Thank you for the correction.
KennyDap (2026-06-17 20:38:16+00:00): The deletion was a mistake.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184244761
Baconcrisp (2026-06-17 22:10:41+00:00): May I ask why you made these changes to "F Road" and "Patterson Road"? What source did you use? If you checked the area for Mapillary you would see that your name changes are incorrect. Patterson ends at 31 Road which can be seen here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.0918575&lng=-108.47825645477997&z=18.73858273777371&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=2046420189286556&x=0.7000655745246825&y=0.5104402897733032&zoom=0.6678360891124431 and F Road starts at that point which can be confirmed with the street sign at the next intersection here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.091823897310434&lng=-108.4758595557513&z=18.73913112617126&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=948125487953517&x=0.6931240199597075&y=0.5132472815755722&zoom=0.6678360891124431. "F" is the ref that was given to the entire stretch by the city so why did you remove it and add it as an alt_name?

Please refrain from making edits in this area without first consulting with the local community.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184243619
Baconcrisp (2026-06-17 22:20:08+00:00): Why are you changing street names that have fractions in them? Did you use a specific source to confirm they were written that way?

There's a street sign for F 1/2 Road here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=39.09904219997199&lng=-108.47785949997001&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=1341192023039605&x=0.39253343336649904&y=0.4305074396092258&zoom=1.6890601589255136 that confirms it was written as it is on the sign before you changed it.

F 1/4 Road was fixed by a local editor once because someone made the same change you did and you reverted their edit seen here: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/16998507. Why did you change it?

Please refrain from making edits without first consulting with the local community.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184244034
eggie (2026-06-17 20:21:16+00:00): Commentaar moet zijn landcode verwijderd
Britzz (2026-06-26 14:51:09+00:00): Bonjour, vous avez ajouté un magasin qui a priori n'existe pas : non visible, immeuble d'habitation et non pas commercial, site web (https://opentools.studio) qui n'existe pas. Quelle est la source d'informations utilisée ?
utux (2026-06-17 21:17:00+00:00): человек, ну что-же ты творишь :))) какое приднестровье?
Приднестровский картограф (2026-06-17 21:43:32+00:00): Чего ты добиваешься? Политический срач хочешь устроить? Здесь каждый народ описывает свою землю и не лезет на чужую. Не лезь со своими провокациями в Приднестровье, потому что твой Бессарабский регион тоже легко становится русской провинцией с русскими городами. Тебе это надо?
Приднестровский картограф (2026-06-17 21:44:58+00:00): Это адресовано тебе, утух.
utux (2026-06-17 23:14:46+00:00): Что за бред? что за чушь? - ты где этого набрался?
Jk488 (2026-06-18 16:40:24+00:00): Please leave comments in English or Georgian so other local editors can understand your changes
Adinurbekov (2026-06-24 03:39:42+00:00): Thanks for mentioning I'll know.
LordGarySugar (2026-07-13 23:20:45+00:00): I have reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185683529 as the tagging changes you have made are not correct. You removed a number of barrier=bus_gate, these are clearly visible on aerial imagery and prevent cars from driving onto the guided busway. You removed bus:guided=designated, which conveys that the busways are intended for guided buses. You changed bus=no to bus=designated, which is not correct as regular buses cannot use these busways, they are exclusively for guided buses as indicated by signage and road markings.

If journey planners are broken, it is their responsibility to adjust their software to take into account correct OSM tagging. It is not correct to change OSM tagging to fix a third party routing issue. Please raise the issue with the websites concerned, or start a discussion on community.osm.org before changing established tagging. Thank you.
user_24224200 (2026-07-14 14:21:06+00:00): Hi; my changes were made following it breaking public systems used for the likes of Traveline, Arriva and other companies. It was fixed matching the published OSM wiki pages (Linked below) on how it should be correctly tagged. 

It is your edit that goes against these published tagging schemes and is causing damage to general public systems. 

The Wiki's state it should be tagged `highway=bus_guideway` `access=no` `bus=designated` and then if known `operator=*` and `name=*`

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway
user_24224200 (2026-07-14 18:52:30+00:00): To enable proper discussion I've created a thread in the community area if you'd like to join the discussion https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/luton-guided-busway/145421
LordGarySugar (2026-07-15 00:20:49+00:00): Thank you for opening a thread, I have written a reply there with some more information.
PierZen (2026-06-18 18:09:48+00:00): Discussions sur community.openstreetmap recommandent de de ne plus utiliser données CANVEC désuetes, imprécises. Votre approche ne permet pas non plus d'intégrer l'ensemble des données hydriques contours et linéaires de façon complète et cohérente.    
Voir canada1eau qui intègre coutours cours d'eau et linéaires de Geobase.ca  https://ouvert.canada.ca/data/fr/dataset/1c0e8a4e-952c-cd7a-1be8-29691aea2cd1?res_page=2#resources Exemple : sous-bassins de riviere de Puvirnituq où j'ajoute les données par sous-bassin hydrique.  Je regroupe les linéaires selon index order:strahler ce qui me facilite validation des données.
PierZen (2026-06-19 00:50:53+00:00): Follow your private message here to let other community members follow the discussion. My observations are about the geometry and to have a more systematic and coherent way to import data.
Compare your data with this JOSM wms Canada NHN National Hydro Network layer wms:https://maps.geogratis.gc.ca/wms/hydro_network_fr?FORMAT=image/png&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=nhn:nhn&STYLES=&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

  You say that you have difficulty to communicate in other languages then from your country and have difficulty to understand Canada wiki instructions.    There are other areas where it might be easier for you to contribute to OpenStreetMap.
UPegasus (2026-06-19 08:17:38+00:00): Дякую за пораду.
mueschel (2026-06-27 14:53:04+00:00): Could you check your communication tags here? 6 of them are not used in any other place.

Here's a list of a couple hundred tags that have been used already:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=communication%3A
Moldovan_Merkator (2026-06-17 22:59:17+00:00): Revert back these changes or your account will be banned forever for vandalism.
Русский Человек (2026-06-18 16:07:42+00:00): Посади на цепь сперва свою румынскую собаку, которая набегает на Приднестровье. Это не я тут конфликты разжигаю.
Moldovan_Merkator (2026-06-18 19:17:32+00:00): Что за бред вы пишите? Я спрашиваю какого черта вы поставили эти названия? Вы в курсе что сейчас 2026 год? Этот сайт сделан для того чтобы были поставлены актуальные наименования объектов а не руны со времён царя Гороха. Выбираете - или поменяете названия обратно или ваш аккаунт будет заблокирован и изменения будут сделаны автоматически.
Русский Человек (2026-06-18 20:09:38+00:00): Я вернул названия ещё несколько часов назад, как ты и просил. Лучше за своими шавками следи, чтобы не занимались вандализмом и провокациями, а не угрожай, будто этот аккаунт чего-то стоит. В твоих же интересах, чтобы здесь тишина и порядок были.
rskedgell (2026-06-18 14:51:16+00:00): Thanks!
yelisey90 (2026-06-18 07:21:42+00:00): reverted - these are not parking_aisles , please re-read it carefully: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service=parking_aisle#Disambiguation

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184257432
Adinurbekov (2026-06-25 05:33:50+00:00): Good afternoon, thank you for noticing the error, I will be attentive
Glassman (2026-06-18 21:53:25+00:00): Note: we don't add personal information to OSM. Can you remove "Gary's Drive" is the way isn't actually named that?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184245975
rajdhani (2026-06-18 06:06:01+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 184255295
Ericksonj (2026-06-18 12:23:33+00:00): Why partially reverted??
rajdhani (2026-06-19 16:49:16+00:00): Hi Ericksonj, 
thanks for reaching out and keeping an eye on the map! To clarify, your edits unfortunately missed a small connecting segment, which temporarily affected the highway class continuity.

To fix this, I updated the highway classification to align with the surrounding network connectivity established by previous user edits. Furthermore, I verified the layout and classification using active GPS traces to ensure accuracy.

The data is now correct and connectivity is maintained. No existing valid data was lost or corrupted in this changeset. Let me know if all sounds good to you.
JeroenHoek (2026-06-18 07:05:27+00:00): Bij een groot complex zoals industrial=slaughterhouse is taggen op een vlak niet per se verkeerd (in tegenstelling tot winkels e.d.). Waarom verwijder je de ruimtelijke informatie hier?
De mammoet (2026-06-18 08:30:43+00:00): Dag Jeroen,
Het is mij niet duidelijk wanneer je iets op het adres tagt en wanneer niet. Ik hoor steeds iets anders en dacht te lezen dat er consensus is dit op de adres nodes wordt gedaan in  Nederland. Ik zal voor grote terreinen wel weer ways hanteren.
JeroenHoek (2026-06-18 08:59:27+00:00): Wanneer het om grote objecten gaat waar het terrein ook relevant is, mag vlaktagging ook. Voor ziekenhuizen en scholen is dat gebruikelijk, bij man_made=works en andere grote industriezaken past het ook goed. Het is niet verplicht het zo te doen, maar als het zo al ingetekend is, is het niet netjes om dat terug te draaien. Je gaat dan van meer detail naar minder detail namelijk.
Taya_S (2026-06-18 17:58:16+00:00): Zie: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20845
flohoff (2026-07-16 15:14:26+00:00): Moin,
du hast hier die piers ausgetragen.
Ich bin eben da gewesen - sind alle da - Ich nehme an das du nur gerade da warst als Röse und Fischer die gerade temporär abgebaut hatte?

Ich hatte die 360° Kamera dabei - also ich hab oben vom weg Bilder und man konnte die gut sehen.

Flo
stirps (2026-07-16 19:35:12+00:00): Bist du dir sicher dass das die gleichen waren? Im vDOP waren die originalen nicht mehr wirklich zu sehen und in den Planungen (siehe auch das Bild unter https://www.guetersloh.de/de/rathaus/presseportal/news/meldungen/archiv/2026/sanierung-uferpromenade-stadtparkteich.php) sind auch neue an anderer Stelle verzeichnet. 

Ich wollte mal schauen inwieweit man das eingezeichnet bekommt, Problem sind aber Lizenz des Bildes und dass keine guten Luftbilder mit Referenzpunkten vorhanden sind.
flohoff (2026-07-17 19:58:00+00:00): Ich war heute nochmal da und habe den rest der Wege Fotografiert.

Es ist _ein_ neuer - Die beiden kleinen sind weg. 

Also hat sich geändert. Von gegenüber kann man es schon sehen. Alles andere ist ja noch abgesperrt.

Flo
isotopicemoting (2026-06-18 20:15:17+00:00): Hey, I noticed that the key ":levels" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763383608 looks like a typo but didn't want to just change it to "levels" in case you meant something more specific.
VictorIE (2026-06-19 00:49:24+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5349532

Yes. I accidentally broke it when copying details from one house to an adjacent house. The tags were nearly identical, except that other house had roof:levels=1 and this one didn't. I thought that I had deleted the tag, but is seems that I only deleted part of it.

I've been doing a lot of work recently, using Taginfo, Postpass, and Overpass to identify dud tags (guess who creates a bunch of them :D ), so I just wanted to keep this to see how Taginfo would treat this. It started when I saw "demolished@:building=yes" which doesn’t break Taginfo, but does break Overpass Turbo.

I didn't remember that I could comment on my own changesets. 

Thank you for the heads-up. :)
VictorIE (2026-06-20 23:10:30+00:00): Hi,

So it seems that Taginfo, Postpass, and Overpass are all 'happy' with the first character being a colon.

They seem to work OK with both ":levels" and ":levels=1".

Fixed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184371025
rskedgell (2026-06-18 08:07:27+00:00): (Review requested)

Changing the address tags on the POI doesn't actually move it on the map.

Does this mean that the premises at 48 Porchester Road W2 6ET are no longer occupied by your business and that you are now trading from 58-60 George Street W1U 7ET ? If this is the case, the tags relating to you business need to be removed from the old location and added to the new location.

The new location was mapped in 2019 with Daniel Galvin's salon as the occupier - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148008521

If you'd like any help updating this, please reply here and I'll be happy to make these changes for you.
ftrebien (2026-06-26 02:17:23+00:00): Outro mapeador já desfez, mas em qual regra do sistema de classificação em vigor se baseia a elevação da RJ-116 para troncal?
bobthebuilder423468 (2026-06-18 23:58:12+00:00): this is why Jesus does not come back.
utux (2026-06-18 00:48:20+00:00): А с чего ты взял что я политизирован? (не говоря уж о том что провокатор?)
user0944 (2026-06-18 01:08:28+00:00): Added crosswalks and access aisles
Minh Nguyen (2026-06-18 17:22:33+00:00): At the West Pioneer Boulevard intersection, Bing Streetside shows a street name sign that seems to say “N. Horizon Blvd.” It’s hard to make out in that footage, but there’s definitely a directional prefix.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-18 19:16:26+00:00): Hm, I guess I'll add it back. Not only is there no "South Horizon Boulevard," but other parts of this road (such as, for example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1194115120) were never tagged with it at all. I will restore them for all portions of Horizon Blvd for consistency.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-18 19:18:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184286700.
Minh Nguyen (2026-06-18 19:57:37+00:00): Thanks, it seems reasonable to extend the directional beyond this one stretch.

Many jurisdictions use directionals to indicate the quadrant of the street grid, whether or not there’s a counterpart on the other side of town. So there could be a North Horizon Boulevard to the north of Mesquite without a “South Horizon Boulevard” to its south.

The origin of Mesquite’s street grid is at the intersection of Mesquite Boulevard (the east-west axis) and Yucca Street (the north-south axis). They seems to apply the direction to arterial and collector streets but not to minor residential streets.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-18 20:39:16+00:00): I see. I tried to demarcate the postal code boundaries, but I ran into issues north of I-15.
smichae (2026-06-18 01:50:35+00:00): Awesome information, thanks for the additions!
saraihdez (2026-06-18 01:56:21+00:00): thank you! :)
thebeastmodo1 (2026-06-24 14:39:51+00:00): Thanks for editing osm
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-01 00:41:58+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20892
btwhite92 (2026-06-18 03:36:31+00:00): Hi there,
The previous beginnings and ends of the 'motorway' segments here were aligned with posted regulatory 'Being Freeway' and 'End Freeway' signage. It was a considerable effort to locate and document the existence/non-existence of this signage (please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Freeway_ends). The decision was made to use state regulatory signage (white signs) to determine motorway/trunk changeovers in order to stop endless edit wars over where a freeway technically ends or begins. I would appreciate if the classification changes were reverted. The signs themselves should still be tagged.
MappingMore (2026-06-18 09:57:34+00:00):  Revert of  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184232684
Alliegaytor (2026-06-18 04:58:11+00:00): Hi,

In this changeset you've created two overlapping ways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1530495023
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1530495022

both have conflicting values (name and maxspeed)

one of the ways should be deleted
Geo_Gunzel (2026-06-18 05:50:16+00:00): Thanks for the eagle eye! Done.
jxeeno (2026-06-21 08:04:01+00:00): Hi there, thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, I've had to revert this changeset (reverted in #184252194) as it removed a portion of George St's highway tags and deleted some other nodes unrelated to the changes you've described. Could you look at resubmitting your changes. If you are adding new points of interest, could you avoid deleting existing building information especially if the building still exists.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184252194
Glassman (2026-06-18 21:55:31+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184252541
FajrAl (2026-06-22 08:09:44+00:00): You already mapped it here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1529640405
felipeeugenio (2026-06-18 15:25:24+00:00): Hello. I am asking other mappers what they think about this edition.
For starters; the south link doesn´t have that shape at all: you are mixing the shape with the dedicated lane for turning left, that ir already drawn as a third lane in Pedro Aguirre Cerda, so the exit is just a detachment from that street.
The separated nature just doesn´t exist also. It doesn´t have separated lanes.

What did you tried to fix here?

regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184253016
felipeeugenio (2026-06-18 15:25:44+00:00): The category change maybe is ok.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184253016
World_Winner (2026-06-19 14:12:35+00:00): Hello felipeeugenio, 
thank you for reviewing the situation and reaching out. I’m seeing that my edits are already reverted by another editor. 

The intention behind this edit was to update the geometry and to better reflect the functional traffic movement in the area, particularly as the situation before the edits did not allow vehicles approaching Pedro Aguirre Cerda from Bombero Classing to turn left or continue on Bombero Classing towards south-east. Our GPS traces suggest the existence of the leftwards traffic from Bombero Classing. Please let me know if it’s legally possible to make this turn, and if it is, how to model it on OSM. 

The turn lane on Pedro Aguirre Cerda, I’m seeing now it’s properly addressed via lane-level tagging. 

Looking forward to hear your take on this so I would better understand the context.
felipeeugenio (2026-06-19 15:07:36+00:00): ok, thanks for the response. I can see now what you meant. I will consult other mappers how to resolve this.

But in any case, there is a trend into making turn lanes like separate ways, and it is almost always wrong. 

I´ll think about the Bombero Classing issue and try to resolve it. thanks
felipeeugenio (2026-06-19 17:51:14+00:00): Hello. Having consulted with some mappers, you can continue driving in BC from south to north, which can be done with the current drawing. But not from north to south.

But you can enter the PAC from the north.

So the current drawing is OK.

regards
World_Winner (2026-06-23 04:44:00+00:00): Hello felipeeugenio,

Thank you for your understanding and for taking the time to discuss this further.

I understand your point on the turn lane topic and understood your concern on over-segmentation.  

Also thank you for consulting with other mappers and for following up with the results. I appreciate the clarification regarding the allowed movements. I agree with your observations. Thank you for taking the time to review the situation and take the discussion to the local community. I highly appreciate the additional context and your local knowledge. 

Happy mapping!
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-24 16:41:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 184533745, 184533274 where the changeset comment is: revert edits of dubious quality, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20861
NanoApe (2026-06-19 10:34:41+00:00): 有毒吧，别把 Ingress 的东西搬到这……
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-06-18 17:00:51+00:00): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-18 17:11:43+00:00): (responded)
Dimacn (2026-06-25 03:58:59+00:00): Добрый день. Пара замечаний по вашим правкам.
1. Не надо рисовать новые дороги поверх уже существующих. Если хотите исправить - редактируйте существующие.
2. Пожалуйста пользуйтесь спутниковыми снимками Esri, они намного новее и точнее чем Bing, которыми пользуетесь вы. Bing в наших краях очень старые.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-18 05:17:51+00:00): Instead of deleting buildings then remapping them, please just correct what is already mapped.
josm19902026 (2026-06-18 06:41:04+00:00): The main issue lies in the low accuracy and sheer volume of the initial drawings, making it highly time-consuming to correct them manually, point by point. We are very committed to the quality and precision of the drawings, and we thank you so much for this valuable feedback. If you have an alternative or easier way to speed up this process, we would welcome your suggestions. Thank you, my friend
VLD0251 (2026-06-18 08:17:54+00:00): @josm19902026, evading blocks through sockpuppetry is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap. this is your 4th account (previous accounts: dark-falcon-osm, mega1999, test0022012)
Please comply with your original bans or reach out directly to the Data Working Group (DWG)
josm19902026 (2026-06-18 08:49:04+00:00): "I'm sorry, my friend, but it seems there's been a misunderstanding. I checked all the accounts you attributed to me, and I was honestly surprised. What truly saddened me was seeing the account (test0022012) banned, especially since it looks like it has been active on the site since 2015. As for the accounts (mega1999) and (falcon-osm), I couldn't find much information on them, and I honestly don't know on what basis all these accounts were linked to me."