piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
overact505 (2026-07-06 15:40:15+00:00): Thanks.
> Overigens is foot=-yes default op fietspaden in Nederland.
Betekent dat ik ook gewoon de entry had kunnen verwijderen ipv op yes zetten?
eggie (2026-07-06 17:21:47+00:00): Yep.. dan 'moet' je gewoon de regel verwijderen.
Overigens laat ik zelf die yestag gewoon staan.
Kwaad kan het niet.
Bij een parallelvoetpad wordt soms foot=use_sidepath getagd om een betere routering te krigen. Voetgangers worden geacht om dat het voetpad te volgen.
Mapse,
eggie
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-06 23:40:46+00:00): Cleaned up SEO mistagging of fire protection POI in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185234035
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-06 16:01:58+00:00): Hi, 
this changeset appears to apply the same naming pattern to several towns/villages, adding Tifinagh/Amazigh names and general transliterations.

Could you please clarify whether each object was manually reviewed one by one, or whether this is a mechanical/semi-automated/systematic edit based on a list, script, transliteration rule, or external dataset?

As far as I understand OSM naming practice, pure transliterations should not be added as name=* or language-specific name:xx=* values unless they are real names actually used in that language or on the ground. name=* should reflect the primary real-world/local name, and name:xx=* should contain a name genuinely used in that language, not an automatically generated transliteration.
Libya-truth (2026-07-06 18:22:11+00:00): Thank you for your comment.

To clarify: this is not an automated or script-based edit. The changes were not generated blindly from a transliteration rule or applied mechanically without review.

The names were reviewed internally before being added. We first compiled candidate Amazigh/Tifinagh names, then checked them one by one from a linguistic, grammatical, and phonetic perspective before applying any change. We do not add or change names unless they have been reviewed for correctness and local relevance.

The purpose is not to add pure transliterations, but to represent real Amazigh/local names used for these places. In cases where a value is only a transliteration or uncertain, I agree that it should not be used as the main name=* or as a language-specific name:xx=* value without proper support.

I am happy to review any specific object if there is a concern about a particular name. If any entry is found to be only a generic transliteration rather than a genuine local/Amazigh name, I am open to correcting it.

Best regards
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-09 13:31:22+00:00): What do you mean by “we” in your last reply? Is this account used by one person, an organisation, or several people?
Libya-truth (2026-07-09 13:44:45+00:00): Hello,

The account is used by me personally I am one individual. I am a native Amazigh speaker from Libya.

When I used "we" in my previous reply, I was simply referring to the fact that I verify names with other native speakers before editing, to ensure linguistic accuracy. This is standard practice for any mapper working with local language data consulting knowledgeable locals to confirm correctness. It does not mean the account is shared or operated by an organization.

I appreciate your attention to ensuring proper editing practices, and I remain happy to discuss any specific name if there is a concern.

Best regards
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-06 15:55:59+00:00): Could you please response to your commented changesets? Thanks.
SBus24 (2026-07-07 12:52:19+00:00): Hello. The edits made to these driveways were done to correct a major routing safety issue. These are strictly private driveways, not public roads or throughways. Mapping them as public routing options is causing commercial/routing traffic to erroneously use them as turnarounds and stops, creating a physical safety hazard.

If completely removing them violates mapping guidelines, please help me ensure they are correctly tagged as access=private and service=driveway so that navigation systems stop routing traffic onto this private property. Thank you."
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-07 13:05:52+00:00): Hello,

Please restore the deleted data first. If the issue is incorrect routing onto private driveways, the appropriate solution is not to delete the ways, but to tag them correctly, for example with access=private and service=driveway, as several other community members have already pointed out here.

Deleting the data first and then asking others to help re-add or correct it afterwards is not common OSM practice. Once the data has been restored, the tagging can be reviewed and improved if necessary.
SBus24 (2026-07-07 13:52:06+00:00): Hello,
Why is it that only CERTAIN driveways are marked.  I would think that all of them should be marked and that we are not targeting specific houses.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-07 14:11:37+00:00): Hello,

OSM data is not always complete or uniform. Some driveways may be mapped because a mapper had enough information to add them, while others may simply not have been added yet. That does not mean specific houses are being targeted.

If additional private driveways are missing, they can also be mapped and tagged appropriately. However, the fact that not every driveway is mapped is not a reason to delete existing mapped driveways. Existing data should be corrected or improved where needed.
SBus24 (2026-07-07 14:19:07+00:00): General rules
The following general rules apply:

Do not map where individuals live; specifically, do not add the names of inhabitants to dwellings.
OpenStreetMap is not a property registry; thus, do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots (see also: Parcel).
OpenStreetMap is not a phone book. Do not map contact data of individuals. For mapped businesses and offices that are public record, adding contact information is acceptable.
Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags unless their name is displayed on a business sign visible from the street, is part of the business name, or is otherwise publicly available. For example, tagging operator=* based on data printed on receipts is normal.
Do not map the personal behaviors, preferences, or habits of individuals.

***Limit the detail of mapping private backyards.***

 As a guideline, permanently installed private swimming pools (add access=private as appropriate) or some structures in semi-public gardens are acceptable. More detailed information is likely to be not acceptable or borderline.
Do not map personal possessions or their locations (like vehicles, TVs, washing machines, or the number of livestock belonging to a household); tags for such should be limited to communal use, e.g., a laundry facility at a campsite.
Do not map personal private indoor facilities, such as showers and toilets in private apartments or houses.  

These are you general rules and I was deleting farms and homes with farm roads (On private property) marked as public roads.    I understand you want detailed maps , but i don't think you would want your backyard mapped on any map either.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-07 14:25:10+00:00): Hello,

I understand the privacy concern, but mapping a driveway, farm track, or private access road is not the same as mapping where individuals live, naming residents, mapping ownership, or adding personal information.

OSM does map physical features that exist on the ground, including private roads, driveways, farm tracks, and access ways. If they are private, they should be tagged as private, for example with access=private, service=driveway, or highway=track where appropriate. They should not be deleted simply because they are on private property.

If some of these ways were incorrectly mapped as public roads or were being used for routing, then I agree that this should be corrected. But the correction should be done by changing the classification and access tags, not by removing the features entirely.

The privacy rules you quoted are about not adding personal details, names, ownership, private possessions, or excessive detail in backyards. They do not generally mean that private driveways or farm access roads should be removed from the map.

Please restore the deleted data first. After that, the ways can be reviewed and retagged appropriately so that routers do not treat them as public through roads.
MassCartog (2026-07-07 15:53:25+00:00): Hi, Pitscheplatsch, the data has already been restored.

SBus24, keep reading that wiki page you are quoting.
https://i.imgur.com/YiSWTjE.png

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_private_information
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-07 16:08:00+00:00): Indeed, in the *very next line* following the passage you quoted https://osm.wiki/Mapping_private_information#Exceptions :

> Mapping private buildings, private roads (including driveways), and private parking is completely acceptable. Add access=private as appropriate to roads, parking lots, etc.

Furthermore, I note the same mistaken access tags are still being used on private driveways as of your latest post-block changeset 185265172 , despite three at least three other mappers previously informing you of the correct tagging, and you yourself mentioning the correct tagging in the discussion on changeset 185209043

https://osm.org/changeset/185265172

https://osm.org/changeset/185209043
iuvi (2026-07-07 18:41:30+00:00): Roll back this changes, this is not fit the rules of OSM

These roads are way from secondary road to Highway
SomeoneElse (2026-07-09 09:10:34+00:00): Hello,
Would it be possible to explain in a bit more detail the reason why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104422078/history should be a trunk link rather than a motorway link (or vice versa?)  Also what about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1365376018/history ?
Best Regards,
Andy
iuvi (2026-07-09 12:34:02+00:00): Sure

If you look on "knot" where roads are placed:

There are 4 lines lay to drive OUT from secondary road TO highway, and 4 lines are drive away’s FROM highway TO a secondary road

I attaching screenshot so you could see how helpful it is (and correct too) for people who seeing map 

-> https://ibb.co/Z6fWfMpc

P.s. yeah, small piece left, i fixed it
SomeoneElse (2026-07-10 17:34:48+00:00): Hello LakePoopó - do you have any comment here?
LakePoopó (2026-07-10 22:19:45+00:00): Hi SomeoneElse,
To follow the OSM Wiki’s guidance on highway links (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link), it is my understanding that highway links should be tagged with the link classification of the highest classified road they connect to. I also didn’t see any unique highway link tagging guidance on the WikiProject Kazakhstan page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Kazakhstan).
In addition, I noticed Mapillary here (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1071956004646332) and here (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3898888097061417) shows road signs for no pedestrian access on these highway links, which aligns with the restricted access of motorways and motorway links.
From this, it seems motorway_link would be the most accurate classification for all of the highway links at this junction.
iuvi (2026-07-11 05:47:01+00:00): This is something i get in doubt in local OSM community and they said visibility \ comfort for navigation for end users is not important (wich is bad on my opinion) and hope OSM leaders\community will review their position on highway_links \ secondary roads_links in near future so end users of OSM gladly and visually understandably\comfy use the map

About rules and links provided by LakePoopó - in post-soviet country's (most of them) you can walk by motorway but you can not go up and walk by highway. and signs are stays exactly on beginning on highway_links that are laying up from secondary roads to them
SomeoneElse (2026-07-11 12:08:16+00:00): @iuvi - The approach by @LakePoopó does match what most people do in OSM.  Looking at examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverleaf_interchange , I see https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=33.80595&mlon=-118.142047&zoom=11#map=16/33.80517/-118.14413&layers=S , https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=34.071659&mlon=-118.122938&zoom=11#map=17/34.072284/-118.125177&layers=S , https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.318361&mlon=-6.368222&zoom=15#map=17/53.318262/-6.368181&layers=S (I've chosen motorway/non-motorway junctions, and the Shortbread layer to highlight the difference).
iuvi (2026-07-11 15:01:44+00:00): Ok if you say me - i will change classifications back that they were before

Anyhow, really hope OSM community\maintainers can consider initiation to change a rules a bit so visual-ability for end users became more comfy

Thanks
SomeoneElse (2026-07-11 18:56:21+00:00): Oops - @iuvi I think you have moved it in the otehr direction.  Have a look at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/1087142815 - that has been a motorway link for most of its life; you have changed it to trunk.
iuvi (2026-07-12 19:18:48+00:00): In my country due censorship this link not works :((
SomeoneElse (2026-07-13 07:39:47+00:00): Try https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087142815/history
iuvi (2026-07-16 15:57:35+00:00): So i changed tag to a motorway_link and it have different color
LakePoopó (2026-07-16 23:31:38+00:00): Hi All, I have updated this junction so that it is consistently classified with motorway links, to follow the guidance mentioned above. iuvi, please let me know if you have any concerns with this modeling.
SomeoneElse (2026-07-17 09:23:19+00:00): Thanks - that does now follow how these things tend to be mapped worldwide.
Thierry1030 (2026-07-09 04:10:43+00:00): Dag H4N5-antw, uitnodiging voor event op 11/7 goed ontvangen?
H4N5-antw (2026-07-09 12:41:49+00:00): Waarde Thierry, 
Uitnodiging inderdaad goed ontvangen;
zal gezien naar verwachting 32C en lange stadstrappen naar de B&B afwezig blijven;
overigens lijkt mij dit een oneigenlijk gebruik van de Changeset functionaliteit. 
Met vriendelijke groet, 
Hans
aixbrick (2026-07-06 17:21:55+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OSM,
die Eintragung von Flur- bzw. Gewannnamen ist immer wieder Gegenstand von Diskussionen, zuletzt in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neues-tag-fur-flurnamen/142342
Das Problem: Es sind sind Namen, die historisch und vor Ort selten verifizierbar sind, sie stehen lediglich in ALKIS. Ich persönlich erfasse sie nicht, lösche sie aber auch nicht. Das können andere Mapper anders sehen. Sei also nicht überrascht, wenn sie plötzlich wieder verschwunden sind :-).
Gruß
felipeeugenio (2026-07-06 16:04:52+00:00): Estimado. En el editor JOSM, que hay que descargar y que es un poco mas tosco que ID, pero tiene incluido un sistema para agregar numeraciones repetitivas.

entonces si acaso las numeraciones tienen intervalos de X numeros entre ellas, se hace mucho mas rápido.

En el chat de la comunidad en Telegram puedo explicarle mejor.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185208658
felipeeugenio (2026-07-06 16:05:24+00:00): además los puede dejar equiespaciados y alineados. para que se vean mas "profesionales".
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185208658
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-06 15:55:45+00:00): Could you please response to your commented changesets? Thanks.
SBus24 (2026-07-07 12:51:49+00:00): Hello. The edits made to these driveways were done to correct a major routing safety issue. These are strictly private driveways, not public roads or throughways. Mapping them as public routing options is causing commercial/routing traffic to erroneously use them as turnarounds and stops, creating a physical safety hazard.

If completely removing them violates mapping guidelines, please help me ensure they are correctly tagged as access=private and service=driveway so that navigation systems stop routing traffic onto this private property. Thank you."
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-07 13:05:32+00:00): Hello,

Please restore the deleted data first. If the issue is incorrect routing onto private driveways, the appropriate solution is not to delete the ways, but to tag them correctly, for example with access=private and service=driveway, as several other community members have already pointed out here.

Deleting the data first and then asking others to help re-add or correct it afterwards is not common OSM practice. Once the data has been restored, the tagging can be reviewed and improved if necessary.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-06 15:56:09+00:00): Could you please response to your commented changesets? Thanks.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-06 23:47:23+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20911
SBus24 (2026-07-07 12:50:58+00:00): Hello. The edits made to these driveways were done to correct a major routing safety issue. These are strictly private driveways, not public roads or throughways. Mapping them as public routing options is causing commercial/routing traffic to erroneously use them as turnarounds and stops, creating a physical safety hazard.

If completely removing them violates mapping guidelines, please help me ensure they are correctly tagged as access=private and service=driveway so that navigation systems stop routing traffic onto this private property. Thank you."
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-07 13:05:46+00:00): Hello,

Please restore the deleted data first. If the issue is incorrect routing onto private driveways, the appropriate solution is not to delete the ways, but to tag them correctly, for example with access=private and service=driveway, as several other community members have already pointed out here.

Deleting the data first and then asking others to help re-add or correct it afterwards is not common OSM practice. Once the data has been restored, the tagging can be reviewed and improved if necessary.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-07 15:03:40+00:00): NB, all of their changesets were already reverted and the deleted ways restored in changeset 185224570

https://osm.org/changeset/185224570

(FWIW, while it is their responsibility to tag these driveways appropriately if they want to ensure they are treated as private and the community has already made clear to them how they should tag them--so I'm not sure what more help they are reasonably requesting here--I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect such a user to be able to reliably and correctly execute a mass revert of all their changesets, one that you or I could do in Better-OSM-Org + JOSM Reverter in ~60 seconds. :)

In any case, they followed up with another changeset, changeset 185265172 , instead adding tags to the driveways--albeit not the correct tags that not only others but also themselves mention here, thus I've advised them accordingly.

https://www.osm.org/changeset/185265172

(BTW, speaking of reverts, been compiling a reply to your very kind and encouraging DM while I was completing remediating the last NeisAgent-flagged changesets over the past few days, and will send it later today. Thanks!)
gurglypipe (2026-07-07 08:26:03+00:00): Hiya, did you see my comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185132873?

There are a number of fields here which were tagged as pasture (using the old farmland=pasture tagging) which will need their tagging fully updating rather than just changing the landuse= tagging.

i.e. landuse=meadow meadow=pasture
rather than landuse=farmland farmland=pasture

Please don’t forget to update those tags, otherwise you’re dropping detail from the map :)
literan (2026-07-06 19:34:41+00:00): Аптека это не название, это тип объекта
aord (2026-07-06 19:43:10+00:00): Формально там две надписи: Аптека (вывеска) и Аптечный пункт (на графике работы). Завтра посмотрю мелкий шрифт :)
literan (2026-07-06 19:50:36+00:00): для надписей есть тег inscription

а названия может и не быть (в стриткомплит можно выбрать такой пункт)

здесь подробнее, если интересно: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Названия#Имя_–_это_название_и_только
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-11 21:04:42+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. See https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

SEO spam; bowling alley was already mapped as a building at that location. Reverted in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185560276
ajmat (2026-07-07 06:34:52+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185246136
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-10 07:21:48+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20918
MikeN (2026-07-07 11:57:24+00:00): Why are multiple cameras being created at the same location?
Poretsew (2026-07-07 08:38:24+00:00): Extra toelichting: de weg is niet opgebroken maar alleen afgesloten met hekken (voor onbepaalde tijd), dus access=no lijkt me voor nu passend. Ik kan later nog eens kijken.
Wildsharky (2026-07-09 05:37:11+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185261685
AndyB_66 (2026-07-06 16:32:50+00:00): Stosuj się, proszę, do zasad komentowania zestawów zmian: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
HellMap (2026-07-07 20:31:11+00:00): Hello,

Please do not mistag way classification for subjective reasons like "priorisation of navigation". Wrong navigation is a router problem, not a data problem. These are not signed cycleways and cycleway laws do not apply here, so they cannot be tagged as cycleways.
Xentraxx (2026-07-08 06:28:53+00:00): Okay, sorry
HellMap (2026-07-08 08:05:51+00:00): No worries, just letting you know about these OSM specifics.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-06 23:38:02+00:00): Reverted series of changesets adding SEO POI and blatantly promotional description=* and other malformed tags to it, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185233938
citrula (2026-07-06 17:20:59+00:00): Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contributions!

Please write a short changeset comment describing the change you made - it helps other contributors understand the edits you make.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping!
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-06 20:06:53+00:00): have you followed https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716/36 ?

where this change was discussed?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-07 03:06:10+00:00): I just visited this area (source=survey).
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-07 03:13:50+00:00): The sole purpose of NM 7 is to connect US 62/180 to Carlsbad Cavern.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-07 07:04:34+00:00): Please reread https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716/36

Can you please NOT change any name or any ref or any classification of any highway in the US or elsewhere until you have proved yourself more capable of “reading the room” when it comes to working out what is appropriate and what not.

People have been incredibly polite with you - perhaps more than you deserve, but there comes a time when we all have to recognise the cost of the rework that you are causing the community.

If you like to make one of these sorts of changes, please bounce it off this forum (or the DWG) first, and don’t proceed without unamimous approval.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-07 07:05:11+00:00): this specific change looks sensible but you are NOT allowed to make any changes like this without review from community
VLD170 (2026-07-06 17:25:54+00:00): Hello Mueschel,

We would like to extend our appreciation for your efforts in resolving these issues. Thank you for your attentiveness in making the necessary updates. Moving forward, we will make sure to monitor for similar misspelled tags.

Best regards,  
VLD 170
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-06 23:36:56+00:00): Reverted spammer re-adding SEO spam POI tags with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185233914
silversurfer83 (2026-07-06 19:31:13+00:00): Hi :)

with foot=yes still tagged nothing really changes here. What do the signs say?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185213085
Access Claims (komoot) (2026-07-10 14:54:41+00:00): Hi, thank you for reviewing it. The signs state that it is private property and there's no public access. Its a campsite accessible only with booking.