piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2024-09-06 22:49:56+00:00): Hello Nicolas Brouilly, welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions!

I've taken a look at your recent edits and wanted to discuss a few discrepancies I noticed regarding the surrounding environmental features. Specifically, the locations in your edits don't seem to align with the typical geographical characteristics expected in that area. Here are some (max 10) relevant links to the edits:
https://osm.org/node/12160963643
https://osm.org/node/12160963642
https://osm.org/node/12160963641
https://osm.org/node/12160963640
https://osm.org/node/12160963646
https://osm.org/node/12160963645
https://osm.org/node/12160963644
https://osm.org/way/1313870491

Could you please take a look?
Looking forward to your response.

#Somewhere
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=156294712
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-12 07:04:43+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/156495624
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 12:06:25+00:00): Revert of https://osm.org/changeset/156293913
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 12:06:22+00:00): Revert of https://osm.org/changeset/156293913
BCNorwich (2024-09-08 06:22:43+00:00): Hi, there are problems with self-intersecting ways here starting with Way: 1313870887
BCNorwich (2024-09-20 06:34:22+00:00): No response, so as there were several self-intersections which could not be resolved without making even more problems I removed Way: 1313870887.

The corridor needs to be mapped without self-intersections, perhaps in several sections or multipolygons.

Regards Bernard.
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 12:06:16+00:00): Revert of https://osm.org/changeset/156293913
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 12:06:13+00:00): Revert of https://osm.org/changeset/156293913
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 12:06:10+00:00): Revert of https://osm.org/changeset/156293913
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 12:06:05+00:00): Revert of https://osm.org/changeset/156293913
gurglypipe (2024-10-16 20:32:51+00:00): Why add bicycle=yes to these roads? It’s part of the default access tagging for roads.
Pete Owens (2024-10-17 22:09:59+00:00): Unfortunately the default tagging for trunk roads is "Not Specified".
gurglypipe (2024-10-17 22:53:25+00:00): Aah, I hadn’t realised the default tagging differs for highway=trunk vs highway=primary or lesser roads. Thanks for clarifying.
Ropino (2024-10-21 18:03:06+00:00): Hi,
please check/correct:
maxspeed=1110 !?
thx in advance
impiaaa (2024-09-06 23:21:48+00:00): On OSM, one feature should only be represented by one OSM object. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element Multiple amenity=universitys with the same name will confuse search engines.
VLD283 (2024-09-17 15:30:12+00:00): Hello Bila Manyina Adam, 

I noticed that many of the buildings in the area of Kaboanya village have names that indicate they might be personal residences. In OSM this type of naming is considered a privacy issue (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information )

If they are personal names, can you please remove the name tag to protect the privacy of the residents? Thank you.
habi (2024-12-10 10:41:05+00:00): Ciao ydrgbjo
Du hast hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413010578 von building=yes zu building=1929.1 umgewandelt.
Das isch öppe e Tippfähler, und ich hab' das rückgängig gemacht.
Gruss,
habi

PS: Ich schaue grad auf taginfo.openstreetmap den 'long tail' aller building-Werte an :)
pippo6 (2025-04-27 20:01:45+00:00): Ciao, bisogna creare i nodi highway=crossing all'incrocio tra i marciapiedi e le strade (fonte https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crossings#Basic_required_tags )

I punti da collegare sono elencati in
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#loc=14/41.08613/14.27507&level=1%2C2%2C3&item=1070&class=8
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2024-09-07 10:19:27+00:00): Thanks! However, please be aware that an outdoor ice rink is not a building. I will fix that.
CAM-Gerlach (2024-09-08 00:04:54+00:00): Hi Joseph! Thanks for the fixes and improvements along Industrial Park Road—it definitely needed some love; I was just focused on other areas at the moment and didn't have time to dig into it.

I do have a question about your changes to the slip road/turn channel between Industrial westbound and Research Center northbound from a `highway=secondary_link` to a `highway=secondary` with a `name`. My understanding per the wiki was that the former was more correct per the lede of the [Highway link article](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link) as well as that of [secondary_link](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dsecondary_link) article), as it is a slip road/turn channel between the former and the latter, while the "main line" of Research Center continues south to the intersection and then becomes a `motorway_link` to 460. It also appears to be inconsistent with the link classification used on the turn channel to Industrial Park westbound and the motorway link it becomes.

As you're a highly experienced mapper, I'd appreciate your insight here on the reason for the classification, particularly as I plan to return to continue mapping the CRC area soon. Thanks!
Joseph R P (2024-09-08 15:34:43+00:00): I retagged it to secondary instead of secondary link since it technically serves as the other carriageway of the road for that short distance rather than as a slipway as it's the only way for traffic to get from Industrial Park Road and onto Research Center Drive. I'm definitely more inclined to keep typical slipways like those at Prices Fork and Toms Creek/Stanger or Southgate and Duckpond as highway links instead of mainline roads since they only assist vehicles making turns and aren't part of the road itself.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-11-21 04:13:42+00:00): This changeset incorrectly changed roads to paths
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156297273
CAM-Gerlach (2024-09-08 00:58:32+00:00): Hello again! Thanks for the roadway hierarchy improvements—that's something I mostly haven't touched for existing ways except in cases where it seemed fairly unambiguous that the existing classification wasn't right, although after several passes I'd been considering doing some reclassification in this area.

While the other classifications make sense, I am curious, however, about classifying Church Street as `residential` rather than unclassified (or the existing `tertiary`)—per my previous mapping in that area, it has no or almost no residential buildings/uses along its full length, and the landuse areas immediately around it (which, full disclosure, I mapped) are all non-residential. Is that just a misclick, or is there a reason for that?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156297350
CAM-Gerlach (2024-09-08 00:59:06+00:00): I'm also a little confused about why the parking way around Wendy's was classified as a `driveway` rather than the previous `parking_aisle` or generic `service`, which seems inconsistent with both the wiki and the consensus its based on, and the tagging of the other similar ways in this mapping area.

Per the lede of the wiki for the former tag, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway , the defining feature of a `service=driveway` is it "leads toward an entrance to a specific destination", whereas the primary purpose of this way is to provide access to parking around the restaurant, and secondarily to the drive-through. Furthermore, none of three primary usage scenarios are close to either of these purposes (direct access to a house/garage carport, space for passenger pickup/dropoff, loading dock access), while it states not to use it on:

> Paths in or around a parking lot (amenity=parking) are tagged with highway=service without service=* on the entrance and exit ways, as well as any way that forms the "trunk" or perimeter of the lot, connecting multiple parking aisles (service=parking_aisle).

Likewise, the wiki page for the approved and implemented `service=parking_aisle` https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle gives specific examples of restaurants with drive-throughs closely resembling this one, stating that they should be either mapped as either `parking_aisle`s or as two separate ways (as done here), one with `service=drive-through` and the other as `service=parking_aisle` (or, presumably, just `service`). It also re-iterates that higher-class ways within a parking lot that provide through connectivity (entry/exit, connect multiple parking aisles) should be tagged as just `service`, while the only relevant mentioned use case of `driveway` inside/near a parking lot is

> Primarily provides space for picking up and dropping off passengers

Given that and your evident experience, I'm curious as to the reason for the present tagging, particularly as I plan to do another pass adding and improving service ways in downtown Blacksburg.
Joseph R P (2024-09-08 15:54:19+00:00): Church Street I downgraded from tertiary to residential since it serves as a minor street in the grid rather than as a through street or collector road. As for its residential classification as opposed to unclassified, these two tags are nearly interchangeable and their usages vary by the user. Some my apply unclassified to a road that might possibly slot between a residential street and a collector road in the hierarchy, but some might also use it to slot below residential as a very minor service road-like street. It doesn't really matter too much which you use, though, because they both render the exact same as each other. I personally use unclassified for access streets on campuses, hospital grounds, airports, industrial areas, commercial areas, etc. or more-rural roads in agricultural areas, typically unpaved ones. All in all, it doesn't really matter which one you use.

As for driveways vs. parking aisles, these two also render the exact same here, but there might actually be some third party renderers that use that data more different than residential vs. unclassified. I tagged the access road to Wendy's as a driveway since it's not just a parking aisle, but also provides access to the drive through and the whole business itself. If this parcel of land right here was only a parking lot, I think parking aisle tags would make a lot more sense. Or, if there was a larger parking lot with separate aisles spurring off the driveway here, I would tag those as parking aisles.
Warin61 (2024-09-07 23:49:37+00:00): NO!

Use of Six Maps brakes their copyright!

Use DCS Base Map instead!

-----------------
The JOSM validator would have issued a warning on way 1311765931 - 'self crossing way' these should be fixed before upload.
GuardedBear (2024-09-08 02:25:45+00:00): Didn't see a validation error upon upload (they normally popup and I fix them), but fixed it now nevertheless.

I've been using DCS Base Map for tracing/aligning buildings, and then SIX Maps for confirming the address for each building (since I was told that's the canonical source for street addresses in NSW). Street addresses can't be copyright can they?
Warin61 (2024-09-08 08:24:57+00:00): DCS has 3 entries for OSM;
Imagery - that is what you are using for building footprints, hte base map does not show them. 
Topographical .. good for large things - like the big power lines as it shows the voltages .
Base Map - shows the addresses.

Note: Six Maps is commercial .. and they will protect their copyright. Use the DCS Base Map .. it should be an option in your editor .. In Josm .. under 'Imagery' select 'Map' then select 'DCS Base Map' Please try to avoid using other sources .. unless they are on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
GuardedBear (2024-09-08 10:52:14+00:00): Thanks, I didn't know about the addresses on the base map. I'll make sure to use that in future.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-10 01:03:44+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164747085
zluuzki (2024-09-07 07:56:05+00:00): Hello, you changed substation=transmission to =distribution on various substations. 
Many of these substations are 230/69kV, and 69KV is transmission system. 
substation=distribution is for substations feeding the distribution grid, which is not the case with substations like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171484619

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:substation=distribution?uselang=en
Aleks-Berlin (2024-09-09 10:11:00+00:00): Hallo Bergischer,
biite tagge wikipedia="de:Abcd" nicht "http..", siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:wikipedia
Danke, Alex
NeisBot (2024-09-07 05:12:38+00:00): Hi tdnkzht, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 84% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 3 highway(s)
- 11 building(s)
- 11 natural(s)
- 26 landuse(')

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=156298341
364 (2024-09-07 05:32:38+00:00): Yes, it is. This is an intentional change.
SomeoneElse (2024-09-08 11:44:26+00:00): Hello 364,
Can you explain why you deleted them?
Best Regards,
Andy
nyampire (2024-09-09 05:50:31+00:00): This user's edits include many pranks and acts of vandalism.
I request that the user be suspended.
I will revert the edits.
nyampire (2024-09-09 08:31:58+00:00): Reverted in 156379617, 156380279, 156380743, 156381480, 156381885 and 156382881.
364 (2024-09-09 10:50:02+00:00): Thank you for your assistance. 

 Thank you for contacting me. I would like to inform you that I live in the area and know more about this region than any other editor. I am confident that I can continue to contribute because I have a deep understanding of the characteristics and needs of this area. 

 Also, can you be more specific as to why your previous edits were removed? If there are areas for improvement, we would appreciate it if you could share them with us. We would like to make use of this information in future edits. 

 Thank you in advance.
SomeoneElse (2024-09-09 11:17:42+00:00): @364 Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
nyampire (2024-09-09 12:40:03+00:00): 存在しない駅名もそうですし、そもそも王宮とかないですよね。英語だからといってごまかせるものではないですよ。
meisoof (2024-09-07 05:10:31+00:00): *re-added
woodpeck (2024-09-22 21:49:30+00:00): In this changeset you have renamed Portugal Parkway to India Street, which seems wrong to me; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137457295 and https://www.heraldnews.com/story/news/local/ojornal/2023/06/14/providence-india-street-renamed-to-portugal-parkway-to-honor-portuguese-heritage-contributions-r-i/70323974007/ - can you explain why you renamed the street? Your changeset comment is not quite clear about that.
snake21 (2024-09-24 22:45:27+00:00): I just corrected the name. Thank you for pointing that out
JJIglesias (2024-09-07 05:50:45+00:00): Gracias
mavl (2024-10-23 04:33:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 158236393 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
okadatsuneo (2024-09-08 12:11:00+00:00): Hello, 364.

Why did you add fictitious objects?
364 (2024-09-09 10:52:50+00:00):  Thank you for your assistance. 

 Thank you for contacting me. I would like to inform you that I live in the area and know more about this region than any other editor. I am confident that I can continue to contribute because I have a deep understanding of the characteristics and needs of this area. 

 Also, can you be more specific as to why your previous edits were removed? If there are areas for improvement, we would appreciate it if you could share them with us. We would like to make use of this information in future edits. 

 Thank you in advance.
lipuma (2024-09-07 09:37:02+00:00): Thanks! Didn't know that amenity existed when I walked past it yesterday.
lyctkel (2024-09-07 16:02:50+00:00): Hi lipuma,
I am also always surprised at all the possibilities there are.
Regards
lyctkel
xrefz (2024-09-07 06:21:15+00:00): Fehler: Nicht Linie 10 sondern Linie 11
Sakari_N (2024-09-07 08:11:48+00:00): Moi ja tervetuloa Openstreetmappiin! Kiitos osoitteiden lisäämisestä. Sellainen huomio, että name= kenttään ei tarvitse/kuuluisi täyttää mitään, jos rakennuksella ei ole tosiasiassa nimeä (esim. kouluilla, kaupoilla ja julkisilla rakennuksilla normaalisti on nimi..) 

Navigaattorit hakevat osoitteen noista address-tageista, ja kartalla näytetään normaalisti numero+kirjain rakennuksessa.
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-07 07:13:05+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156300807
大山かなめ (2024-09-07 07:56:46+00:00): 訂正
マクドナルドは閉業ではなく建て替えでした
mavl (2024-10-23 04:33:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 158236393 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping].
archie (2025-01-12 06:57:17+00:00): Varför har denna byggnad fått layer-taggen (layer=1) (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303391004)?
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-10 01:03:45+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164747085
SomeoneElse2 (2024-09-09 09:01:34+00:00): It looks like there's been a further roll-out of real-time displays - some that previously only had a timetable now have them.
Andrea Musuruane (2024-09-07 15:56:03+00:00): Per favore, fai changeset più piccoli geograficamente. Grazie.
NeisBot (2024-09-07 08:24:38+00:00): Hi tdnkzht, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 84% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 5 highway(s)
- 30 building(s)
- 2 natural(s)
- 8 landuse(')

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=156302834
364 (2024-09-07 15:33:42+00:00): Subject: Regarding your request for confirmation

Thank you for your assistance.

Thank you for your remarks regarding the map edits. I would like to inform you of the changes I have made regarding the recent edits, as they are intentional Specifically, the elements that were removed were selected for the following reasons

- Highways: removed to avoid confusion due to duplication of information that was not necessary.

- Buildings: Items that did not match the current situation, such as information on dilapidated or obsolete buildings, were eliminated.

- Nature: Appropriate information was prioritized in consideration of environmental protection and local wishes.

- Land Use: Due to changes in use, it was determined that the most up-to-date data was needed to address these changes.

These changes were made to provide more accurate and reliable information and were not done in error. If you have any questions or concerns, please let us know.

We look forward to your continued guidance and encouragement.

Sincerely yours.
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 07:15:39+00:00): Thank you for your answer.
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 07:19:39+00:00): May we know the source of your mapping activities?
pitscheplatsch (2024-09-09 09:18:14+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156381480
Kovoschiz (2024-09-07 11:09:34+00:00): I meant it's better to avoid adding `crossing:island=` `=yes` or `=no`  for divided roads entirely. Both aren't clear.
Patr1k_P (2024-09-14 08:31:05+00:00): This part of the road is part of a nature trail?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1313928529
viliak (2024-09-14 09:18:10+00:00): Thanks for noticing, it is a part, but without the restrictions for bikes
viliak (2024-09-14 09:18:27+00:00): I am going to fix it immediately
viliak (2024-09-14 09:21:40+00:00): Fixed within https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156602735
Patr1k_P (2024-09-15 08:08:06+00:00): I am rather interested if the short section mentioned above is part of this session

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2927103
viliak (2024-09-15 08:40:52+00:00): Yes it is, there is a choice of 3 variants an this part is a shortest one
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-06 04:01:53+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164574024
Florek89 (2024-09-07 15:08:21+00:00): Do większości dróg powinno być dodane access=private, gdyż nie są to ogólnodostępne drogi. Prosiłbym o dodanie tego tagu. Z góry dziękuję.
KarolQ34 (2024-09-11 15:54:05+00:00): ok postaram się ogarnąć
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-09-12 20:42:54+00:00): Why was the highway tag removed?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156304086
JIFFNET (2024-09-27 20:26:25+00:00): Hej! Czy na pewno szlak przebiega przez szczyt? W czerwcu tamtędy szedłem i wzdłuż drogi przez szczyt nie było żadnych znaków. Czy od tego czasu się coś w terenie zmieniło?
ndmystko (2024-09-30 06:38:10+00:00): Hej, ja tam szedłem w drugiej połowie sierpnia, czyli niedużo ale jednak później. Jestem przekonany, że przebieg jest tak jak narysowałem ale nie mam jak tego potwierdzić. Pozdrawiam!
syntex (2024-09-07 16:03:06+00:00): Dlaczego nie łączysz płotów z zagospodarowaniem terenu?
syntex (2024-09-07 16:03:43+00:00): Poza tym dodajesz je cały czas krzywo, ich przebieg nie zgadza się z rzeczywistością
Dawid2849 (2024-09-07 10:15:31+00:00): source=survey miało być
eggie (2024-09-07 14:40:38+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  Het is eigenlijk niet de bedoeling om wegen uit OSM te gaan halen omdat deze over privéterrein lopen.
We taggen dan access=private en/of access=permissive bij.
Ook hulpdiensten navigeren tegenwoordig mbv OSM via LiveOp!
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Elisa de Jong (2024-09-09 14:59:41+00:00): Eggie,
Zie ook mijn andere reactie. 
Het is niet mijn bedoeling om niet binnen de OSM richtlijnen te werken. Mocht dit zo zijn dan mijn eccusses.
Bij city strides loop ik er tegen aan dat er wegen aangegeven worden als openbaar  (dus waar ik lopen kan) maar dat dit niet het geval is. Vandaar mijn aanpassingen. 

Misschien kunnen deze openbare straten/wegen op een andere manier aangeduid worden? Tenslotte zijn deze niet openbaar ivm privé of bedrijven terrein.
eggie (2024-09-09 15:53:34+00:00): Deze https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=156307209

stond inderdaad openbaar. Ik heb hier na herstel access=private aan toegevoegd. Je zult dus op die bedrijventerreinen access=private zelf kunnen toevoegen. Wanneer je er mag komen natuurlijk niet doen, maar dan kun je er ook rondrennen.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-09-07 14:49:22+00:00): Beste Elisa.. De weg staat toch al op access=no?
Wat is het probleem hier?

MVG
eggie
Elisa de Jong (2024-09-09 14:51:14+00:00): Eggie,
CityStriders maakt gebruik van OpenStreedMap. De 'nodes' zijn van belang om een straat te voltooien. De aanpassingen die ik bezig bent te maken hebben verschillende redenen.
Er zijn nodes-punten die binnen een afgesloten terrein liggen (bv de Gaastraweg), lopen op een privé terrein van de doorgaande weg tot op het erf (bv. Veensluis, Kniepe) of is bedrijven terrein (bv. De Dolten, Heerenveen)

Misschien is er een alternatief voor deze punten?
eggie (2024-09-09 15:07:32+00:00): Dag Elisa...
Dit al meerdere keren aan de orde geweest. City Stride zal zich moeten confirmeren aan de conventie van OSM.
Dus wegen die op access=private of no staan moeten negeren.
Wegen verwijderen omdat de app anders niet goed werkt is niet toegestaan.
Soms zetten we Eigen Terrein op access=permissive.. anders werken bezorgdiensten ook niet meer.
Ook bedrijventerreinen kunnen achter de hekken op access=private.. svp niet de toegangswegen verwijderen.
Je zou het probleem een kunnen bespreken op het forum van OSM.
Er zullen vast nog wel meer City Striders zijn.

Mvg
eggie