piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Szymson (2025-12-03 19:29:19+00:00): W OSM stosujemy pełne nazwy, skrót OSP powinien zostać rozwinięty
grzegorz75jan (2025-12-04 02:23:36+00:00): Wystarczy doczytać o nazwach
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity=fire%20station?uselang=pl
Szymson (2025-12-03 19:29:08+00:00): W OSM stosujemy pełne nazwy, skrót OSP powinien zostać rozwinięty
Poretsew (2025-12-03 20:29:19+00:00): Goed bezig Erik, maar nu heb je deze barrier=gate ook verwijderd. Geen idee wat er misgaat. Ligt dat aan maproulette of zo? Afijn, succes 👍🏻
erik1984 (2025-12-03 20:35:44+00:00): Dit is een andere changeset :) Staat los van de changeset die ik in de note heb aangehaald.
Lou-Yasmine (2025-12-03 19:40:39+00:00): bug incessant. J'ai dû placer les points sur les terrains de baskets mais ça a durée plusieurs heures (plusieurs jours même).
MassCartog (2025-12-03 21:14:54+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. The features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
stillhart (2025-12-06 21:35:18+00:00): 🤩🤩🤩 Beautiful, perfectly mapped and so fast. Thanks!
Roydon Olive (2025-12-04 12:14:00+00:00): You didn't even divide any streets in this changeset. The only change you made was to the access of a road. So your summary comment is completely false! Please do not do that!
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-03 19:43:19+00:00): shop=vacant was clearly leftover from older versions
MxxCon (2025-12-04 20:27:52+00:00): Hello.
When mapping features please be careful when panning the map around. In this edit you seemed to accidentally dragged a road a few blocks over.

I'll fix this, but in the future, please be pay attention on the changeset submission screen. It shows you what elements you are modifying... If you see something that's unexpected, please double check your changes. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175461607
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-18 08:42:53+00:00): poprawisz te amenity=was:bicycle_rental na was:amenity=bicycle_rental ?

a tak ogólniej - te punkty zostały na razie?
Fan map 2 (2025-12-20 12:35:30+00:00): Ou, już zmieniam, byłem pewien że dobrze zastosowałem lifecycle prefix.

Ogólnie zmapowane stacje "stacjonarne" (bo istniały również wirtualne strefy zwrotu) to były zwykłe stojaki rowerowe, które zostały na swoich miejscach. W dalszej perspektywie można zamienić te punkty na bicycle_parking z tym że wiele z tych lokalizacji w ogóle wypadałoby zweryfikować, bo nie jestem pewny, że wszystkie zmapowane stacje znajdują się w dobrych miejscach. W międzyczasie Ventlan poprawiał lokalizacje, ale wiadomo, że jego zmiany zostały wycofane.
TrickyFoxy (2026-01-02 18:31:55+00:00): Вы просто растянули полигон здания. А нужно было просто нарисовать новый полигон для жилой территории
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-05-30 20:41:46+00:00): Reverted SEO account adding malformed tag values to POI

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183417840
BjörnSc (2025-12-04 13:31:08+00:00): Hey, vielen Dank für die Ergänzungen. Eine Frage/Anmerkung: Die Gebäude sind im Vergleich zum ALKIS nicht rechtwinklig.
Im iD Editor kann man das bspw. mit dem Tastenkürzel 'q' machen. 
VG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175462136
BjörnSc (2025-12-04 13:31:09+00:00): Hey, vielen Dank für die Ergänzungen. Eine Frage/Anmerkung: Die Gebäude sind im Vergleich zum ALKIS nicht rechtwinklig.
Im iD Editor kann man das bspw. mit dem Tastenkürzel 'q' machen. 
VG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175462136
Ondřej Lopatka (2026-01-09 11:14:15+00:00): je way/1455848491 opravdu cesta, tedy trail, nebo má značit oblast trail parku? Je totiž značena jako plocha, což by u cesty být nemělo. Zároveň obsahuje neplatný vícečetný surface=
BjörnSc (2025-12-04 13:31:06+00:00): Hey, vielen Dank für die Ergänzungen. Eine Frage/Anmerkung: Die Gebäude sind im Vergleich zum ALKIS nicht rechtwinklig.
Im iD Editor kann man das bspw. mit dem Tastenkürzel 'q' machen. 
VG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175462205
BjörnSc (2025-12-04 13:31:47+00:00): Hey, vielen Dank für die Ergänzungen. Eine Anmerkung: Die Gebäude sind im Vergleich zum ALKIS nicht rechtwinklig. Es wäre schön, wenn du das noch ändern könntest.
Im iD Editor kann man das bspw. mit dem Tastenkürzel 'q' machen. 
VG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175462205
yelisey90 (2025-12-04 12:02:44+00:00): The incline can't be "up" if the stairs descend into the underpass from two sides. They should be split in two.
anotherToad (2025-12-05 13:38:47+00:00): Why exactly are we changing Allen Road to highway=primary? highway=trunk would be more appropriate if a downgrade is called for.
349179440 (2025-12-05 18:22:09+00:00): should it be fixed to the secondary road?
anotherToad (2025-12-05 18:40:53+00:00): Allen Road is a remnant of the unbuilt Spadina expressway, and I believe it's been motorway by consensus for a long time. As it is fully grade-separated, I think it should at least sit higher in the heirarchy than Yonge Street... maybe a highway=trunk
(also sry for being a bit blunt)
349179440 (2025-12-05 20:00:02+00:00): Hi there, I fixed Allen Road according to what the City of Toronto said. I contacted Toronto 311 and was told that it should be classified as a Primary road and not a motorway, as it is not a highway at all and is classified as a municipal major road. Also, a road is not classified as a highway in Ontario until it has a 100 Km/h speed limit. Allen Road, in some parts, is a maximum of 80Km/h.
Jarek 🚲 (2025-12-11 02:24:20+00:00): City of Toronto would never tell you that a road is classified as a "motorway" because that's not a term used in Canada.

The City's road classification system https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/traffic-management/road-classification-system/maps-and-indices/ considers the Allen to be a "City Expressway", same as Gardiner and DVP.

For that matter the other categories in City's classification are "major arterial", "minor arterial", "collector", and "local", so I am curious that they told you any road was classified as a "primary road". 

But in any event, if you want to use City as a source, use its road classification, not 311...
anotherToad (2025-12-11 02:31:54+00:00): Hey Jarek, I've recently noticed that Major Mac west of the 400 has been changed to Primary for no apparent reason, if you'd like to take a quick look at that ;)
Jarek 🚲 (2025-12-11 03:22:41+00:00): (Responded via DM about Major Mac)

The other problem with using any City of Toronto classification for Allen Road is that in OSM, highway=motorway is invariably used for _quality_ of the road, not for its importance or any official classification. A dual carriageway access-controlled road with grade separated interchanges is an OSM motorway. The only exceptions are very short stretches (only one or sometimes only two interchanges), but this doesn't apply to the Allen.
349179440 (2025-12-11 16:02:55+00:00): It is a city-managed road that only goes 80 Km; therefore, it is a primary road. If you would like to change, you can. I live in the area, and I thought that classification makes the most sense for this. This is not a highway, and by the way, Major Mac can be classified as both a primary road and a secondary road. Dependent on what you think. It is a major regional road with multiple lanes.
349179440 (2025-12-11 16:05:46+00:00): Also, I would really be careful with Major Mac. It probably is a secondary road. People in the area may have classified it as that because it seems like that when driving on it.
349179440 (2025-12-11 17:25:13+00:00): Also, Jarek, do you by anychance live in the immediate area?
Jarek 🚲 (2025-12-11 18:37:10+00:00): I live in Parkdale

I am not convinced that 80 km/h speed limit is a big factor here. It's still a freeway. There are other freeways in Ontario that have max 80, like the Red Hill Valley Parkway and the freeway part of the Hanlon Expressway (the latter one is even a provincial highway)

The highway classification in southern Ontario has been generally:
- motorway: freeways (dual carriageway, access controlled, grade-separated interchanges)
- trunk: it's a bit of a mess but generally non-freeway roads that are part of the National Highway System Core routes
- primary: non-freeway provincially-owned highways, short links between those ("Connecting Links"), and other notable major roads, especially former provincial highways (e.g. former Highways 2, 5, 8)
- secondary: ordinary grid arterials in GTA, and regional/county roads

The Allen, the Gardiner, the DVP, the Red Hill, Black Creek Drive before Lawrence are all in a similar boat of being municipally-owned (for now), partly lower speed limits, but they're still freeways, with full access control and interchanges. Changing just the Allen makes it unusual. If you want to change all of those to primary, it would be best to discuss this a bit more widely before making the change, for example at the Canadian forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95
Jarek 🚲 (2025-12-11 18:39:08+00:00): Also, *if* the Allen is to be primary, please note that ramps like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/124003604 should be tagged highway=primary_link, not highway=primary
349179440 (2025-12-11 19:09:58+00:00): Ok. I will get back to you. Also, keep in mind why Highway 7 is classified as a primary road, then?
349179440 (2025-12-11 20:00:36+00:00): What should Allen road be?
lastcommodore (2025-12-12 03:14:51+00:00): Only noticed this change now. +1 with Jarek. The Allen Road is a motorway. It was built as one, it is called an expressway identical to the rest of the expressways in Ontario, and the City of Toronto calls it an expressway. It is classified the same as all other municipal expressways. https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/road-maintenance/bridges-and-expressways/expressways/allen-road/
https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/road-maintenance/bridges-and-expressways/expressways/. Wikipedia also lists it as an expressway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_expressway I am not aware of anyone calling the Allen road anything but an expressway.

To your question of Hwy 7: Expressways are separate from historical highways. Hwy 7 is classified no differently than Hwy 10 AKA Hurontario-Main. They are considered primary roads. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ontario_provincial_highways
lastcommodore (2025-12-14 01:49:25+00:00): For the time being, i've decided to manually revert the reclassification of Allen from motorway -> primary until consensus changes

If anyone is willing to make a forum post and decision is made to reclassify Allen, we can do that

For the record, thank you for the contributions, but generally major re-classifications like this should go thru the forums first
Jarek 🚲 (2025-12-14 02:50:52+00:00): I have started a thread in the forum for road classification in southern Ontario https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/southern-ontario-road-classification-ongoing-thread/139281 and I invite participation from anyone interested!

(You log into the forum with your OSM account, it's easy and doesn't require a separate signup)
gscholz (2025-12-06 10:04:01+00:00): Hi Lola Fox,
your recent changesets have left behind several broken landuse relations, so the content cannot be rendered properly on maps:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=11.92238&lat=44.36362&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Can you please fix this?

I also would like not to collect several relations in one relation together, as relations are not collections. So please keep things simple so they can be maintained easily.
Kind regards
Guido
Roydon Olive (2025-12-04 12:14:48+00:00): Again, your comment is false. You changed the type and access of roads only.
Hb- (2026-02-23 07:28:15+00:00): Bei dieser Änderung ist in die Naturraumgrenze way/429093416 der node/3073297645 aufgenommen worden. Wieder entfernt mit changeset/178929524
mweper (2025-12-04 00:54:30+00:00): Hola Agustín, gracias por colaborar. 
He observado tus ediciones y noté que agregaste el nombre de la sucursal dentro de la etiqueta "name". 

Esto es incorrecto ya que existe una etiqueta dedicada para este fin, la cual es "branch" ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:branch ) y debe colocarse allí el nombre de la sucursal.

Por favor revisa la documentación de esta etiqueta y corrige. Si quieres saber más del porque está distinción, mira https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Nombre_es_solo_el_nombre

Saludos.
no details provided here (2026-01-07 10:40:05+00:00): Hi - these are regular estate houses, essentially rectangular and can be easily squared in iD editor. Also, the hereditaments are connected by garages and number 1 as mapped is in fact 1 and 3 and 7 has been missed. Can I assist as I am local to here?
no details provided here (2026-01-29 16:32:28+00:00): I'm happy to visit and verify this site in the next week or meet you to discuss.  We seem to have a number 7 missing which (according to sources I can't cite here) does appear to exist.  Will you be checking the location or should I?  Thanks - happy to help.
mweper (2025-12-04 00:55:26+00:00): Hola Agustín, gracias por colaborar. 
He observado tus ediciones y noté que agregaste el nombre de la sucursal dentro de la etiqueta "name". 

Esto es incorrecto ya que existe una etiqueta dedicada para este fin, la cual es "branch" ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:branch ) y debe colocarse allí el nombre de la sucursal.

Por favor revisa la documentación de esta etiqueta y corrige. Si querés saber más del porque está distinción, mira https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Nombre_es_solo_el_nombre

Saludos.
mweper (2025-12-04 00:55:39+00:00): Hola Agustín, gracias por colaborar. 
He observado tus ediciones y noté que agregaste el nombre de la sucursal dentro de la etiqueta "name". 

Esto es incorrecto ya que existe una etiqueta dedicada para este fin, la cual es "branch" ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:branch ) y debe colocarse allí el nombre de la sucursal.

Por favor revisa la documentación de esta etiqueta y corrige. Si querés saber más del porque está distinción, mira https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Nombre_es_solo_el_nombre

Saludos.
user_5359 (2025-12-03 21:10:03+00:00): Welcome to OSM! For a better description of your object, please have a look on https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:aeroway.
rskedgell (2025-12-04 00:34:22+00:00): Changing access=private to access=no changes the meaning from "access only with explicit permission" to "no access for any transport mode", which is unlikely to be correct.

You can read the documentation for the access key here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

You also dragged part of the track onto a power line, which is why the editor warned you about crossing ways and disconnected highways.

Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175468464
felipeeugenio (2025-12-04 11:24:03+00:00): Hola. por favor cuadrar las casas, Eso se puede hacer con la letra Q.

Además, si son casas iguales, puede simplemente copiar y pegar.
Es algo sencillo. Lo vamos a corregir ahora, pero puede hacerlo usted sin problemas.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175463454
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-07 19:36:11+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13352053040/history has power = 22 that was added in this edit
What this tag means? Numeric value is unexpected here and it is unclear what it means
NGlf (2025-12-08 03:50:48+00:00): My bad, it was carried through copy/paste from another node.
I found 3 more instances and corrected these also, thanks for spoting.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-12-04 00:56:53+00:00): 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.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455855508

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
vuckan (2026-02-01 22:22:56+00:00): Imaš li izvor za prekategorizaciju? GIS Cesta Federacije pravac preko Studentskog mosta i dalje prikazuje kao dio ceste M-17.4
MarinoBM (2025-12-03 22:27:31+00:00): Esta edición ha sido revertida por su contenido publicitario.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spam#SEO_Spam
eggie (2025-12-03 21:25:11+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback  name=Kablebaan heb ik aangepast naar playground=zipwire
Niet name=...gebruiken om iets te beschrijven. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
silversurfer83 (2025-12-03 21:18:00+00:00): Hi :)

meinst du nicht, dass bei diesem Automaten ein Teil des Namens besser in "operator=*" wandern sollte und "name=*" hier ganz entfällt?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175463917
BBJIB (2025-12-03 21:21:20+00:00): Hi! Da bin ich dir total einig. Feel free das in diesen Fällen noch anzupassen, ich bin inzwischen wieder weiter weg weil es mir zu kalt war :)
BBJIB (2025-12-18 09:52:29+00:00): Name durch operator ersetzt, changeset 176086352
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175463917
silversurfer83 (2025-12-18 09:54:26+00:00): besten dank :)
Max-Kritic (2025-12-04 13:05:54+00:00): Une erreur. Je corrige ce soir
Wyatt Sibilia (2025-12-04 13:27:40+00:00): Hi, thank you for your reply explaining your decision. I understand the value of data, but I will now explain why I believe removing it was correct for multiple reasons.

1. This trail is no longer visible in person. It was a seldom used social trail upwards of 10 years ago, and has had little to no use since then as is visible by plants, bushes, and fallen debris left untrampled in the "trail" path. I have walked it myself and without using OSM to follow it, there is no way to tell it was ever a trail. It is no more a trail then any bushwack through the woods may be considered a "trail" or "path". From any reasonable perspective this old social trail is no longer an evident foot path when seen on satellite or in person. 

2. A new, actual trail, is planned and will begin progress soon. Having this outdated trail, that has no visible evidence in person, will cause confusion to trail goers and may cause them to get lost on private conservation land.

3. It would not be enough to simply mark it as private access because OSM is used on popular apps like AllTrails, Gaia GPS, etc. as the default map and shows trails regardless of their status on OSM. There is active deer management through hunting on this property, harmful invasive plants, and a plethora of core forest. Misleading people into believing this is a still existing trail, and not the rewilded area it is now, could lead to serious injury or serious environmental degradation. If this trail needs to be saved in a historical dataset to show that at one point in time 10+ years ago there was a social trail there, then OSM should add a feature for that. It is no longer a physical trail, let alone a permissible one, and its existence is not only an error in the data you are prioritizing, but an actual danger to people and planet. 

Let me know if you have any questions, I will wait a day or two for you to read and reply to this and then I will go forward again with the edit. I have read the links you sent, I can see how in my original edit my description did not seem like a valid removal, but I hope you can understand now why I deleted this "path".
Wyatt Sibilia (2025-12-04 13:29:11+00:00): If I need to provide photo evidence of the lack of trail, I can do so. But I have bushwacked this area many times mapping a new ideal trail, and so I believe that qualifies as local knowledge.
Wyatt Sibilia (2025-12-04 13:31:46+00:00): I hope my reply does not come across as rude, I am just trying to be thorough in my response. Let me know if you need more information
MassCartog (2025-12-04 15:05:06+00:00): Hello, Thanks for the reply on! No, I don't think you're being rude.

I restored the path for two reasons:

1st: Your change set comet simply stated "unapproved social trail on private conservation property" without the other information you provided here. To me, this implies the trail exists, but it is unapproved. And that alone is an invalid reason to remove the data.

2nd: I took a look at the heatmap data for the last 12 months at saw there has been significant activity along that main trail that connect the two trail networks north and south. It seems as much activity as anywhere else along these trail networks. 

See that here:
https://i.imgur.com/b3P3rCe.jpeg

But I'm unsure if you are just talking about the trail to the west leading off into someone's yard (osm.org/way/1455858090), I could see that not existing anymore.

So this is why your statements confuse me, because it seems like this trail does exist in some way. If it didn't, I would not expect so many tracks in the last year to all lay on top of each so perfectly through the woods. If nothing was on the ground for people to follow, I would expect a mess of tracks though the woods, all out of alignment. But it is a perfectly defined route, as much as any other trail in that area.

So are you talking about that trail that seems to link the two trail networks? (osm.org/way/526531575) Or are you talking about that other trail leading to the west? (osm.org/way/1455858090)