piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Colin Smale (2024-03-12 17:00:07+00:00): What was the "issue" with the admin boundary? On the coast it should align with the official mean low water line.
EightMegs (2024-03-15 01:18:50+00:00): It was protruding out into the sea to enclose a groyne which is no longer there.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148524406
Rngrk (2024-03-11 22:35:26+00:00): 基于卫星图和ESA WorldCover 2021,尝试性编辑，还需要进一步清理
ChrissW-R1 (2025-04-09 15:34:46+00:00): Please check https://osm.org/note/4703000
eggie (2024-03-12 06:48:48+00:00): Dag Bram  Heb je de busroutes gecontroleerd? Niet alles sluit aan.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-03-12 07:01:41+00:00): Drie busroutes hersteld .. Stukje Trompweg stond op de verkeerde plaats helemaal bovenaan in het relatievenster.

Groet
eggie
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-20 20:41:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148933260 where the changeset comment is: revert golf course mapping without sources, without explanations
LockOnGuy (2024-03-11 22:34:18+00:00): please do use meaningful changeset comments - “fix” does not help other mappers understand what you are doing.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-03-21 06:06:24+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17335085/history 

is it surface=paving_stones ? surface=sett ? surface=unhewn_cobblestone ?
HikeAndMap (2024-03-21 18:11:57+00:00): good one! I didn't realize this one but yeah it's paving stones as surface and material marble
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-15 19:35:54+00:00): Thanks for reply!

edited this specific relation in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150055517 (maybe other objects also should be edited like this)
sahilister (2024-04-07 05:49:12+00:00): Hello Rakshan, 
the correct tag for a tree is natural=tree . See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree and not name=tree/tree1/tree2 with park tag.

Regards,
sahilister
pantufla (2024-03-12 14:22:18+00:00): Looks good. I'm not sure about adding pylons there it particular, but let's leave it so. About the ref=* I wouldn't add them if not know. I guess this feature is hard to represent. But I like you found a niche worldwide you like to map.

Happy mapping!
Thierry MGTX (2024-03-13 19:12:10+00:00): Adding pylon marks on the corners : I did it because I saw this on some other full-size cable systems (even before I began mapping).
Using ref=* only if I know : I asked a French highly active member if the use of this tag would be relevant before (numbering the corners by order of crossing, as sometimes displayed on pylons).
Thanks for the compliment and happy mapping too !
Andrea Musuruane (2024-03-12 16:03:36+00:00): Ciao. Qui c'è qualcosa che non va. C'è sia amenity=fuel che disused:amenity=fuel. Ciao, Andrea
Marek-M (2024-07-12 12:02:04+00:00): Cześć,
Zauważyłem, że łączysz obszary z drogami. Jest to błędne działanie. landuse nie powinno łączyć się z liniami highway, bo później bardzo utrudniona jest edycja takich dróg.

Landuse można łączyć z innym Landuse. Jak możesz to poprawiaj miejsca, w których taki błąd popełniłeś. Dzięki.

Przyklad: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/608424661/history/2 https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/350466688 i inne tereny przy ul. Okólnik
aharvey (2025-02-08 11:27:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162275879 due to use of proprietary data.
Hungerburg (2024-03-14 23:01:21+00:00): Wegen der Wechselscharte - die ist kein mountain_pass sondern ein saddle - der Weg geht da NICHT drüber, sondern ein wenig danben dran vorbei.
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-20 20:41:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148933260 where the changeset comment is: revert golf course mapping without sources, without explanations
dzidek23 (2024-03-12 10:04:35+00:00): Great update, thanks for that
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-12 19:06:51+00:00): This changeset was reverted in part or full.  This is not the appropriate way to map private access.  access=* tags should be used.

you also added a ton of water lock gates which are used in canals.  I went ahead and changed it for you in verifiable locations with the correct gate tags.

Adding notes and names to ways/features does not align with OSM guidelines.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148526991
eggie (2024-03-12 06:41:01+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Ik heb noexit=yes toegevoegd op de eindnode.
Denk dat het geen nuur is maar een barrier=fence en loopt die niet verder door?

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
glennonline (2024-03-12 06:46:11+00:00): Hi Eggie, ik heb nog even gekeken op streetview, daar is de actuele situatie te zien, hij loopt inderdaad verder door naar rechts, ik zie nu alleen nu hoe ik dat nu nog even beter kan aanpassen.
eggie (2024-03-12 07:05:09+00:00): Oke.. probeer maar gewoon zelf. Veel plezier met mappen..
eggie
eggie (2024-03-12 06:44:16+00:00): Dag glen  Wellicht de functie toevoegen.
tourism= apartment?

MVG
eggie
NorthCrab_upload (2024-03-12 00:10:23+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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.

"Polichna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3229421751

"Polichna Czwarta":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11720564151
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11720564152

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
muralito (2024-03-12 02:26:54+00:00): Hola. Marcá en desuso lo que entiendas que va así, pero la el mapa que pusiste en source https://www.sateliteferroviario.com.ar/horarios/mapa_argentina.htm indica que un tramo de Arrecifes a Pergamino esta en uso y lo etiquetaste disused. Revisalo por favor, a ver si es real la discrepancia.
trigpoint (2024-03-12 18:08:36+00:00): Bore da
Just wondering why you have deleted this right of way, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209115561/history?

Diolch Phil
Chris Denomy (2024-03-14 00:36:18+00:00): Hi Phil.  My mistake.  I thought I was deleting a golf path that wasn't there.  A 'right of way' sounds like a different animal.  My apologies.
Frans S (2024-03-18 17:52:24+00:00): Hello. 
you tagged a complete stream as layer= -1 and as a ford.
Select only the crossing node and tag it then.
Best regards
zluuzki (2024-03-14 21:05:29+00:00): railway=abandoned refers to an abandoned railroad right-of-way, which is still visible - and that is very clearly the case here. For example: the entire ROW can be seen on the USGS 3DEP, which means that ground traces exist.
Therefore I reverted this edit.
treestryder (2024-03-15 01:27:32+00:00): Have you seen this railway?
emersonveenstra (2024-03-15 11:09:00+00:00): This changeset has been re-instated in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148681678#map=14/42.8903/-85.3404, even if the argument could be made for some of the railways existing, it cannot be made for all of them, and since the revert also deleted valid objects like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1261324993, it is unquestionably vandalism, and the DWG has been notified of it
zluuzki (2024-03-15 12:45:43+00:00): I am seeing it clearly, both the mentioned 3DEP and recent aerial imagery.

Can you explain in own words what railway=abandoned means?
emersonveenstra (2024-03-15 12:54:06+00:00): Really? You're seeing it cross roads with no railway crossing like here https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/185002244?

railway=abandoned is a "route [that] is still visible with ties/sleepers, signals or other railroad right of way signs or infrastructure". Key word here is "infrastructure", which a ROW is not. Bing streetside here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/141080659 shows no evidence of infrastructure, only a two track through the woods.
zluuzki (2024-03-15 13:25:33+00:00): The key phrases are actually a bit longer: "route [and] other railroad right of way signs or infrastructure". 

It does not only refer to an old track alignment that is still visible, but also an old route that is still visible - yes, this is a difference. Directly north & south of the road are physical traces visible, in a way where it is clear that the route/ROW crosses the road here at this exact location. This is why I think a railway=abandoned way crossing at this road is valid mapping.
But I don't oppose cutting out the road crossing either.
(Note that such "road crossing cuttings" have already existed at the northern end of the line at Grand River Drive, but those have been deleted too (see osmcha link below)).

Note that an embarkment is a very significant part of the infrastructure.

Only because there is a single road crossing where the railway=abandoned is not clearly visible dosen't justify deleting the entire line, especially if all other parts are still clearly visible.

Calling a changeset "unquestionably vandalism" because 4 out of 180 changes are not referring to the reasoning for the revert is veeeery doubtful. (yes, the small pier is the only thing unrelated to railways, see https://osmcha.org/changesets/148681678)

Somewhat offtopic: Why is there a bridge mapped at the road crossing in question? I'm pretty certain that there is no bridge, maybe a culvert.
treestryder (2024-03-15 15:56:04+00:00): Including the pier addition with unrelated edits was my mistake. I have already added it back, with a few other details of the park. 

  

You will find that nearly all of my edits are done after I have physically been to an area. I try to also capture Mapillary imagery. It seems that my camera powered down during my drive on Monday not long before I reached this area. So, now I have no proof of what I saw. 

  

Trains are great. I like trains too. However, OpenStreetMap is a geospatial database that attempts to digitally represent _current_ realities. 

  

When a railway is converted into something else, for instance a driveway, someone's home, a multiuse path; it is no longer a railway, abandoned or otherwise. It is now that new thing. 

  

When an old railway is completely lost to time and can no longer be traversed on foot, of what value is  to OpenStreetMap users? If anything it adds noise, implying someone might traverse its length or navigate by it, but it is gone... Its traces only visible using LIDAR or someone with a keen eye viewing a tree line in areal imagery. It is time that the former railway is moved to the Historical Map or accessed from OpenStreetMap's history. 

  

You are welcome to put the abandoned railway back. I will get back over to that area eventually. I will then try harder to collect proof before I map what I find. And if again I find that it would be useful to have mapped what once was (as sad as it might be), I will map the area accordingly.
treestryder (2024-03-15 15:58:43+00:00): ...if again I find that it would *not be* useful...
zluuzki (2024-03-17 08:23:48+00:00): Thanks for the reply. It seems that we have different understandings of what railway=abandoned means.
The way I am interpreting the wiki and have used it is that it doesen't mean "former railway" but instead "former railway still traceable".

Not everyone needs to be able to immediatly trace it from the ground - but it should be possible, and it is the case here. 

The embarkments, tree lines, buildings alignments, railtrails, etc etc etc and heck, even the difference in vegetation color on farmland are still remnants that actually exist on the ground. Those features didn't just came out of nowhere - they're only there because there is/was a railroad right-of-way. 
I don't see anything wrong with mapping that context, especially in times where micromapping like 3Dbuildings, manholes, road markings, parking spaces. etc is encouraged.
treestryder (2024-03-17 13:32:42+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a picture of the world from above, it is useful data for navigating the world which is rendered into a picture and much more.

And to those with the time to micro-map, I can think of more useful uses of that time. I also hope they plan to update their work as the truth on the ground changes. I know I don't have the time to maintain it. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
SomeoneElse (2024-03-30 18:59:01+00:00): To be honest, in this example the railway=abandoned https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Jj4 is VERY obvious on aerial imagery, and I bet it's also obvious on the ground, too.
wolfgang8741 (2024-04-10 13:11:57+00:00): Obvious aerial paths don't seem to be sufficient if ballast or other elements of the infrastructure are present on the ground per my reading of It may be worth capturing photos of the area as if the ballast isn't present then you could point to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway "What is sufficient to map a former railway"
Joseph R P (2024-03-15 00:47:32+00:00): Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap! I'm going to just let you know that it's reasonable and common for motorway links to have at-grade intersections including signalized ones as they're often intended to connect to other non-freeway roads anyway, and ramps like these should remain motorway links. It's rather that the motorways themselves should not have any signalized intersections along them except for when it's at a terminus.
DSGBMD (2024-03-16 04:13:32+00:00): Hi, thank you for reviewing my modifications and sorry for the mis-edits. I am new to editing OpenStreetMap but am a longtime user. I have to say, I've always found it very strange that motorway links look identical to motorways. 99.9% of the time it works because the motorway link either provides a free-flow connection to another motorway (which makes the link operate like a motorway), or it terminates at a non-motorway (which can be easily assessed from the visual contrast). However, a few very rare types of interchanges, like this one, look misleading since the ramps all appear to be free-flow and are not. Not sure if this is something that's been extensively debated in the past, but I will certainly defer to the rules.
Joseph R P (2024-03-16 18:01:10+00:00): No worries, it can be confusing because the only rendering difference between the highway links and the roads that they connect to on OSM Carto are that the links render slightly thinner and do not render road numbers when tagged with them. Thank you for your response and happy mapping!
alexey_zakharenkov (2024-03-16 21:51:09+00:00): На сайте просклоняли название Supernova, чтобы получить слоган "ЖК SUPERNOVOГО поколения". Название ЖК явно не SUPERNOVOГО.

Исправил.
alexey_zakharenkov (2024-03-16 21:58:50+00:00): Вы удалили со здания адрес. Пожалуйста, верните.

Нет большого смысла разбивать здание на части, если вы не указываете отличающихся свойств этих частей. Обычно разбивают из-за разной этажности, которую записывают в тег building:levels каждой части. Кол-во этажей можно посмотреть, например, на Яндекс.Панорамах или в ЕГРН в слое ОКС.
emersonveenstra (2024-03-12 12:17:07+00:00): Hi there,

Did you mean to change railway=abandoned to railway=path here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1218802913/history
treestryder (2024-03-13 03:21:49+00:00): Nope. Thanks.

I meant to delete "railway", as it has long since been converted into a pathway.
fortera_au (2024-03-12 03:18:47+00:00): Hey, is this actually a full residential road or just a driveway to a couple of houses?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148528867
mikimapbuilder (2024-03-12 07:16:01+00:00): Hi, thank you for your comment. Yes, this is a driveway, and modification is made.
Hungerburg (2024-03-12 22:37:21+00:00): Kenn mich mit solchen Dingen nicht so aus also einen Bekannten gefragt, https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148569533 der hat die Erweiterungen Kartenstile "Geh- und Fußwege" und "Fahrspur- und Straßenattribute" (Darf man bei Haus 78 wirklich nicht umdrehen?)

Kommt eine Sperrlinie eigentlich nicht aufs Gleiche heraus wie ein Grünstreifen?
aw_LT (2024-03-15 13:53:53+00:00): Die Kartenstile werden ich mir anschaun, vielen Dank für die Empfehlung.

Zum Linksabbieger Höhe Hausnummer 78: Stimmt, das Verbot kann man vermutlich wieder löschen, ich hatte die falsche Annahme, noch auf einer Vorrangstraße im Ortsgebiet zu sein, da darf man ja nur an geregelten Kreuzungen umkehren. Nachdem die Vorrangstraße in den Langen Weg abknkickt, sollt's erlaubt sein.

Welche Sperrlinie meinst Du?
Hungerburg (2024-03-15 22:43:29+00:00): Die Orthofotos sind so gut, mit dem Fahrspur-Stil könnte man die Fahrbahnbreite danach genauer erfassen als vor Ort zu Fuß nach "1 Meter" Schritten :)

Sperrlinien meine ich eigentlich alle, vielleicht auch nur die doppelten, ziemlich sicher nicht nur die Stuttgarter Schwellen. Bin kein Automobilist.
Xvtn (2024-03-20 22:50:10+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! One suggestion is that since there's no northbound access to 273, and since 273 is represented by 2 separate ways, we can just remove the NB connecting piece altogether. I went ahead and did that.
Thanks for your contributions!
MxxCon (2024-03-12 05:09:28+00:00): This is not a valid opening_hours tag.
You can use https://projets.pavie.info/yohours/ to help you craft valid opening hours values, or any other validator.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148529554
Pieter Vander Vennet (2024-03-12 12:02:33+00:00): I've corrected them
IraGersh (2024-03-12 12:11:23+00:00): Thanks for fixing. I see what I did wrong.
Marek-M (2024-03-13 09:24:26+00:00): Cześć, wczoraj zmieniłeś m.in. te węzły na was:amenity chociaż pasują pozycją do stacji Mevo z komparatora https://starsep.com/MevoOSM/
GDA202 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6484693145
GDA154 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6205201288

Czy te stacje nie istnieją w terenie?
czebureks (2024-03-13 23:04:53+00:00): Cześć! Te stacje faktycznie już (z powrotem) istnieją. Zsynchronizowałem już bazę OSM z bazą MEVO zgodnie z zestawieniem, które udostępnił @kubahahaha w tym poście: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/trojmiejski-rower-metropolitalny-mevo/86944/8
MxxCon (2024-03-12 05:10:07+00:00): This is also not a valid opening_hours tag value..
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148529637
IraGersh (2024-03-12 12:10:30+00:00): Thanks for fixing.  I see what I did wrong.
IraGersh (2024-03-12 12:13:14+00:00): I thought I put a layer of -1 for both.  I initially created them with mapcomplete and then modified them with iD.  There were conflicts that I obviously did not reconcile correctly.
cbeddow (2024-03-14 17:31:53+00:00): These are marked as sidewalks, but should be marked as Crossing (Zebra). I am fixing it now! It is best to make 4 separate lines, 1 for each crosswalk, and not draw them as a single line with 4 pieces in it.
cbeddow (2024-03-14 17:32:12+00:00): oops, crossing (lines) not zebra
Hufkratzer (2024-03-12 19:49:38+00:00): Hi,
You have removed the building tag from the large building and retagged it as a riding centre. But without a building tag this building will no longer be rendered as a building on the maps. Also the tag leisure=horse_riding is not meant for specific buildings but for the whole riding centre, like here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/810083535#map=16/60.6411/17.1114&layers=P
Compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dhorse_riding
Frans S (2024-03-19 17:14:21+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped . However, Buildings are often not squared.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148530042
willkmis (2024-03-12 04:42:10+00:00): Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like in this edit you might have drawn duplicate features on top of existing roads and buildings. Please make sure to check if the feature already exists in OSM before adding it! Perhaps you had the "existing data" layer turned off in Rapid somehow.

I'm going to go ahead and revert your edit so that it doesn't break things like correct routing on the 110, but please reach out and ask if you need any help, and don't be afraid to keep adding new data to the map!

Thanks, and happy mapping.
Will
Vinber-Pro (2024-04-25 14:57:17+00:00): Bonjour,
tu as ajouté des source=madatlas sur chaque objet. Je ne suis pas sur que cela soit adapté. Je pense les retirer, à discuter à l'occasion, j'espère que nous en aurons l'occasion.
Au plaisir
Vincent
DinahMG (2024-04-26 11:01:23+00:00): Bonjour,
Oui car MadAtlas travail directement avec les locaux pour vérifier le source. De plus j'en ai déjà discuter avec le support de Open Street Map et ils m'ont dit qu'utiliser source est le plus adapté.
Cordialement
Xvtn (2024-03-19 15:43:27+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! I'm not sure what specifically the warning you got was, but I didn't see any real problems with your addition. Here are some possibilities though... (none of these apply here, as far as I can tell)

- "Routable features" like foot paths, roads, etc. should generally be connected to one another to be useful. That means a "floating" feature or group of features isn't very useful for routing.
- If features overlap or cross: They should either be connected in real life like a crossing across a road, or they should be tagged as tunnel/bridge etc. as appropriate.

Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!
Igor Bubelov (2024-03-14 06:47:23+00:00): Hi!

This seems to be an address with no amenity, it can't accept bitcoins:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/296843291

It's probably a duplicate of a restaurant nearby
_klaas_ (2024-03-12 12:38:30+00:00): Hallo Bahntech, warum entfernst du bei allen denen Änderungen das Tag "circuits" von Hochspannungsleitungen?
CorruptComputer (2024-03-12 04:52:35+00:00): Apologies, the bounding box for this is a lot larger than the area of edit since I split the railway here to add a bridge:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1261371104
Glassman (2024-03-12 18:50:13+00:00): Did you send the user a message explaining why you reverted the changeset?
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-12 19:08:08+00:00): Added comment to original changeset.  This was not a revert in the normal sense, but more of a cleanup.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148526991
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148531976
gscholz (2024-03-13 06:55:58+00:00): Hi morago,
your recent changesets have created a lot of errors regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=128.10787&lat=35.09893&zoom=7&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148532428

Can you please fix this?

Btw. you can avoid uploading such errors by using the internal validator of JOSM:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Validator

Kind regards
Guido