piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
DFSC937 (2026-06-10 16:15:46+00:00): Is there a camera at Kings Island now?
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-07 12:53:30+00:00): Hi! I will revert this update, since the data was up to date and you used outdated imagery to realign roads to previous configuration which is obsolete since 2025.
aceman444 (2026-06-07 13:53:04+00:00): Zdravim, aky je tu zdroj? Pokial viem s vymedzenim mestskych casti bol problem. A tiez sme zistili, ze sa nie vzdy vclenuju do katastralnych uzemi (level 10). Preco tu teda menite dokonca clenov relacii susednych obci (na level 8) ?
Preco ste napr. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16789092/history/8 vymazali?
Preco je napr. stvrt https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20825380 na level=10 ked to nie je katastralne uzemie?
Fjana (2026-06-07 15:45:01+00:00): Ahoj. Procházel jsem stránky města Prešova a našel jsem tyto podklady (jsou uvedeny u těchto relací). Relací 16789092 jsem nahradil novou relací ve stejných hranicích (uznávám, že jsem měl nechat tu původní).

Katastrální území se posunuly na boundary=cadastral, protože nejsou správními hranicemi, ale evidenční jednotky (je to v některé z těch větví diskuze na mailové skupině). Na admin_level=10 by měly podle poslední úpravy (pokud jsem správně pochopil tu diskuzi) být městské části se zřízenými výbory.

Zkoušel jsem to srovnat s katastrálními hranicemi, ale nepodařilo se mi potvrdit, že jsou už v hotovém stavu (například v oblasti Martina jsou katastrální území, které se překrývají, a myslím, že tam nějaké chybí), proto jsem bral za závazné informace poskytnuté mapovým portálem Prešova, který se odkazoval na městské části v těchto hranicích.

Možná by to chtělo otevřít znova v té diskuzi nebo dokonce možná vytvořit nové vlákno, jestli si myslíte, že jsem to udělal špatně.
Franta
aceman444 (2026-06-21 19:40:52+00:00): Ano do fora som napisal niekolko otazok, zatial bez Vasej odpovede.

Ok, ak ste pouzili tu mapku mesta a vedeli ste tie hranice podla nej zakreslit tak mozno OK. Aj ked neviem aky je rozdiel v hraniciach, ktore som urobil ja na admin_level=11 a 12 a tymi Vasimi na level=10. A preco tie vase maju place=quarter a border_type=quarter to neviem, to urcite nesedi na to co sme diskutovali doteraz. Ako som pisal na fore, zaktualizujte cely Vas navrh preznacenia, aby sme videli, ci to do seba zapada.

Katastralne uzemia sa mi javia kompletne vsetky. Pri Martine je nieco navyse,alebo prekryv. Pozriem na to.
Fjana (2026-06-21 21:27:03+00:00): Zdravím. Rozdíl v admin_level=10 a admin_level=11 spočívá v tom, že pro ty na admin_level=10 existují správní orgány (v tomto případě výbory městských částí), zatímco ty zatím na admin_level=10 jsou nesamosprávné. Tag place=quarter jsem použil právě proto, že zatím na nic napojený nebyl a povahou odpovídá tomu, co tyto obvody jsou, ale je možné ho odstranit.

Návrh plánuji sjednotit, zaktualizovat a shrnout až dokončím jiné věci, které v současnosti řeším (v osobním životě). Vím o něm a plánuji to udělat. Do té doby jsem se zdržel dalších zásahů na Slovensku, abych do toho nevnesl další nepořádek.

Děkuji za zprávu ohledně katastrálních území.

Franta
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-16 10:56:54+00:00): Reverted adding SEO POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags, likely sourced from Google Maps, in changeset 184175817

https://osm.org/changeset/184175817
HellMap (2026-06-06 19:14:13+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for you edits. Just wanted to let you know that it's not needed to specify access values such as foot, motor vehicle, horse, etc. unless they are specifically forbidden or designated. On almost all streets, there are no special rules like that.
pwbriggs (2026-06-10 02:07:58+00:00): Oh my, you really are ahead of the learning curve. JOSM gridify is one of the most fun plugins. Soon you'll start being able to tell who hires fancy parking lot contractors and whose are a little wobbly (Costco has amazingly consistent rows, for example).
TrickyFoxy (2026-06-07 14:01:38+00:00): 👋 К сожалению Яндекс.Карты для правок использовать нельзя
ViceCityStories (2026-06-08 07:58:35+00:00): Добрый день, хорошо, учту это
Просто думал, что источники на другие сайты приветствуются, а оказывается - нет
TrickyFoxy (2026-06-08 10:40:03+00:00): Приветсвуются разрешённые источники. Сайты заведений — ок. Коммерческие карты в большинстве случаев не давали разрешения на использование их данных. Единственное на яндекс.панорамы смотреть можно
bernward1 (2026-06-06 20:55:32+00:00): Die Buslinien waren bisher einheitlich mit network=VRS getagged. Das ist schon Jahrzehnte so üblich und auch der gebräuchliche Begriff. Keiner redet vom ausgeschrieben Namen.
Mit seinen Änderungen sollte man keine anderen User in Schwierigkeiten bringen. Das große Problem von deinen Änderungen ist, dass alle Abfragen die auf dem bisherigen Begriff aufsetzen nicht mehr funktionieren.
Wenn du unbedingt den langen Namen taggen willst kannst du network:long=Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Sieg nehmen.
Eifelaner (2026-06-07 10:57:15+00:00): ich habe mich an das wiki gehalten

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Abk%C3%BCrzungen Kürze keine Namen ab, die auch ohne Abkürzung geschrieben werden können

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Germany/Nahverkehr#.C3.96PNV-Verkehrsverb.C3.BCnde_in_Deutschland Von der Verwendung von Abkürzungen im network-Schlüssel wird abgeraten

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_position Bitte keine Abkürzungen verwenden
bernward1 (2026-06-07 11:44:38+00:00): Im Wiki steht viel widersrpüchliches.

Deswegen Tags zu ändern die durchgängig anders benutzt werden halte ich für nicht vernünftig.

Der  1.Artikel nennt sogar als Abkürzung NATO, TÜV, ... und genauso steht es mit dem VRS.

Bedenke außerdem dass die Abkürzung sich viel fehlerfreier schreiben lässt. Geläufig sind sie sowie so und außerdem kann man sie auch bei Google verwenden und kommt sofort auf die Verkehsverbünde.

Ich möchte bei der Pflege von Buslinien nicht immer den vollen Namen ausschreiben müssen. Bei jeder Abfrage und bei jeder neuen Haltestelle und Linienvariante. 

Bitte lass es sein eine lange etablierte Traditionen zu ändern.
bernward1 (2026-06-07 11:59:27+00:00): Die beiden Kürzel AVV und VGN würde ich wegen der Verwechselungsgefahr auch nicht verwenden. Deswegen steht ja auch irgendwo im Wiki dass es umstritten ist ob das Kürzel oder der ausgeschriebener Name verwendet wird. Solang das Kürzel eindeutig ist bitte das Kürzel verwenden, wenn es im Gebrauch üblich und in OSM so häufig verwendet wird.
Eifelaner (2026-06-07 12:21:57+00:00): und warum gilt das dann nicht auch für

Münchner Verkehrs- und Tarifverbund
Rhein-Main-Verkehrsverbund
Verkehrsverbund Berlin-Brandenburg
Hamburger Verkehrsverbund
WestfalenTarif
Mitteldeutscher Verkehrsverbund
Regio-Verkehrsverbund Freiburg

usw. ?
Leo Slager (2026-06-07 19:59:30+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
limes11 (2026-06-06 20:45:02+00:00): Hallo TheSYR,

wie in 182768894 hast du erneut highway-Werte von diversen Wegen entfernt und damit Objekten ihren Haupttag genommen.
Das hinterlässt defekte Wege und funktioniert so nicht. Daher wurden die Änderungen revertiert.
Zugewucherte Wege können mit einem disused/abandoned-Präfix versehen werden. Ganz verschwundene Pfade ggf. komplett löschen, nicht bloß den highway-Wert. Die meisten dieser Pfade existieren aber, dürfen nur nicht genutzt werden. 

Grüße
MaliMrav (2026-06-12 21:38:45+00:00): Koji je ispravan naziv ove crkve:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127537045

Pošto su uneta dva različita naziva:

name:sr=Гркокатоличка црква Светог Тројства
name:sr-Latn=Grkokatolička crkva Presvete Trojice
Zoki72 (2026-06-12 23:09:53+00:00): ah oke izvini molim vas :)
MaliMrav (2026-06-15 10:55:48+00:00): Ideja je da pretrage objekata u Srbiji rade podjednako i kada korisnik koristi ćirilicu i kada koristi latinicu. Zbog toga ne bi bilo loše da se nazivi na latinici i ćirilici slažu.

Našao sam na sajtu Turustičke organizacije Vršac da se crkva zove 
Grkokatolička crkva Presvete Trojice, pa ću za sada to uzeti kao verodostojan izvor.
Leo Slager (2026-06-07 20:04:20+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
foreigner037 (2026-06-09 12:37:32+00:00): Здравей,

каква е била идеята тук?
AndyB_66 (2026-06-07 07:51:54+00:00): Po raz kolejny proszę - stosuj się do zasad komentowania zestawów zmian: osm.wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Dimitar155 (2026-06-06 18:38:45+00:00): Предполагам че вече не е вакантен :)
Fraxi (2026-06-06 18:52:01+00:00): Офф, е, добре, защо автоматично не се маха това? Мерси
ceirios (2026-06-06 20:49:52+00:00): Helo, a chroeso i OSM!

Could I ask you to please write descriptive changeset comments, instead of "no" and "yes"? This helps others (and yourself!) know what you've been up to

Diolch
Ceirios
James Hingston (2026-06-06 21:06:24+00:00): I didnt have time to comment, so I left that there as a placeholder
CS-DC-MM03 (2026-06-06 18:24:44+00:00): Any help that anyone could provide implementing this correctly would be greatly appreciated
SomeoneElse (2026-06-08 18:02:44+00:00): Looks like the coastline was fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183815605 - is it OK now?
CS-DC-MM03 (2026-06-29 19:10:31+00:00): It isn't supposed to be a coastline, though, is the issue. I'm trying to put it in as an area map.
SomeoneElse (2026-06-29 19:26:20+00:00): Perhaps ask over at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ as to what this is and how best to map it?
Makeena (2026-06-06 18:39:17+00:00): Actual changes between Brunau and Manegg around the rivers
iuvi (2026-06-06 21:12:33+00:00): This is good. Do you plan in near future add more bus stops and routes across UB ?
teeuwen (2026-06-06 22:01:22+00:00): Yes! Just focusing on Zaisan right now, but I’ll also survey some routes and add missing stops.
VictorIE (2026-06-16 04:48:00+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1526819454/ Should this be building:part=* instead of  building=* ?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1526819453/ See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4888307
b-unicycling (2026-06-18 16:13:41+00:00): There were overlapping buildings, hopefully it is better now
eerib (2026-06-06 20:16:33+00:00): Hello Sun2306,

I've reverted this changeset in full via changeset #183753818 as a number of features were inappropriately moved in an intentional way similar to previous vandalism in this area and to these features.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183753818

I understand this area may be in flux. The trail is currently marked as access=discouraged which is consistent with official signage enacted in the area last year discouraging use but not outright prohibiting use. The bouldering node has also had a description added about the removal of the protective bolts.

It is important to remember that OpenStreetMap has a ground truth principle which means the world is mapped as it exists rather than as one wants it to be.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth

While I don't believe the trail has seen active removal as I can see recent use in activity datasets, if the trail were to see active removal in the future such as significant debris placed on the trail making the trail unusable then it would be appropriate to add the demolished prefix to the highway=path tag for the portions which have had the active removal ("demolished:highway=path"). It is best practice if this includes a check_date and a note to clarify the removal date or observation date and works conducted. This method is best practice as it ensures other mappers are aware of on-going developments in circumstances were signage is vandalized or the trail reopened which is common for unsanctioned mountain bike trails in this region.

I understand you are likely to disagree with OpenStreetMap policy. You are welcome to submit a complaint to the moderation group of OpenStreetMap by sending an email to data@openstreetmap.org. To assist your complaint it helps to include as much detail as possible including photos of any signage or recent works.

Thank you, eerib
Sun2306 (2026-06-06 20:44:01+00:00): Hi eerib,

Thank you for your comment. I understand how you feel about the region in question and can certainly understand your sensitivity, given brazen attempts at vandalism of your edits by certain members of the local community. Nonetheless, I do not think you need to mischaracterize my edits as vandalism, and I trust that you are aware enough to understand that there is no vandalistic intent. A feature was moved elsewhere because it was easier than deleting it and creating a new one, though I understand that this may not be a best practice. 

I appreciate that your interpretation of OpenStreetMap policy means that you believe this area needs to be mapped. I am mapping in line with the "Mapping private information" page on the OSM wiki, which suggests that the general consensus is that this site should not be mapped, in line with the Squamish Nation's Land Use management plans for the area, which make the portion of this trail that accesses the site is not usable. 

Of course, there is an interesting discussion here worth having with the Data Working Group on how to align OSM mapping practices with Indigenous knowledge and wayfinding practices. I acknowledge that you are a resident of a nearby area, and have photographed and visited the area in question yourself, and you presumably understand that the site is on unceded Squamish land. My concerns lie more with power users and members of the DWG who are residents of Western European countries, who seek to impose a European knowledge policy on Indigenous communities in BC such as the Squamish Nation without their consent. 

That aside, I appreciate your other comments with regards to trails that might be demolished or blocked, and will implement them if relevant in the future. In the meantime, we can continue to work towards a version of the map that respects OSM principles and the policies of the Squamish Nation.

Best,
Sun2306
eerib (2026-06-06 21:39:50+00:00): Hello Sun2306,

I characterized the edit as vandalism given multiple features were intentionally moved which did not match the original feature intent. The only rationale I can come up with for these types of edits to be done in this manner is to all but delete the features without deleting them to not raise suspicion.

- Node 12892781186 which is an archaeology site was moved, all tags removed, and replaced with natural cliff.
- Way 1409391284 which is a large glacial erratic stone was moved and placed in an area of bare rock.
- Way 1359914038 which is a large glacial erratic stone was moved and placed in an area of bare rock

The "Mapping private information" wiki page provides general guidelines but certain provisions on the page are not policy. Specifically the subsection "Other concerns" includes the text "While a rough consensus exists on these, there are no written rules:". Some of items written under this section like the one about indigenous sacred sites have been added by the Australian OpenStreetMap community through mailing list discussions and have not been brought to the wider OpenStreetMap community. It would be a good discussion to have with the wider OpenStreetMap community to establish a policy around archaeology sites, indigenous knowledge, indigenous wayfinding practices, and unceded land and the best avenue to start that conversation is on the OpenStreetMap Community forum. I will highlight that I have only added a fraction of the archaeology sites I know about and only ones where it has been publicly documented, is publicly accessible, or where I believe it to be in the public interest.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

I also understand that your interest in OpenStreetMap and the issues you take with volunteers and Data Working Group members are related to mountain bike trail mapping in the Whistler region including the recent dispute in changeset #182626615.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182626615

You may be interested to read the previous community forum discussion specifically about trail mapping in this region and the wiki page "Why can't I delete this trail?".

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-is-not-neutral-why-adding-unsanctioned-mtb-trails-endangers-access-and-potentially-lives/132886

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

As I previously stated you are welcome to submit a complaint to the moderation group of OpenStreetMap by sending an email to data@openstreetmap.org. To assist your complaint it would be helpful to provide a link to this changeset discussion. I will finish by saying that if the DWG were to issue guidance or create a policy around archaeology sites, indigenous knowledge, indigenous wayfinding practices, or unceded land then I would follow that.

Thank you, eerib
Sun2306 (2026-06-07 00:44:39+00:00): Hi eerib,

Thanks for the detailed reply.
Moving the erratics and the node was the wrong way to go about this, and relabeling rather than properly raising the feature for removal was not best practice; I am not as experienced of an OSM user as you. I will avoid modifying features in a way that mutates their original intent in the future. Clearly, if I were interested in secretly deleting the features, you can understand that I would use a more robust method, and calling this vandalism could be understandable. I would far rather see this feature handled correctly.
On the "Mapping private information" page: I've read it closely, along with the "Why can't I delete this trail?" page and the community forum thread on unsanctioned trail mapping you linked. I take your point that the "Other concerns" subsection is marked as a rough consensus, but disagree with the iimplication that this makes the guidance merely advisory noise. It may be underspecified, but in the meantime, it would appear that the recommendation is to leave such a site unmapped. The recourse would therefore be to discuss ways to specify it before defaulting to mapping such features, which, as I’m sure you understand from your work, would be the most collaborative practice. This would be a good discussion to have with the community forum and perhaps ultimately the DWG.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

In the same vein, your remark that you’ve added "only a fraction" of the archaeology sites you know of is hard to read collaboratively. Given that there is no settled answer on what counts as "publicly documented," what "accessible" means on unceded land, and who decides the "public interest", it’s hard to interpret this through a positive lens. One might expect that these answers would be guided by BC’s Heritage Act.

I appreciate that you recognize me as a mountain biker, but I must also correct your presumption that this has to do with the dispute in changeset #182626615. I have long contributed to mapping the Sea-2-Sky and reject the idea that my interest is motivated by the same forces as mountain bikers who seek to vandalize OSM in the region. I am familiar with the discussions between OSM users and the recreation users in the region. I must note that their concerns and the concerns here appear to share a common root, in that they contest Western practices of mapping and ‘public’ knowledge on unceded land. Nonetheless, the issues are separate, though it would be lovely to further establish guidance on how local groups can protect their ways of knowing in this context.

Best,
Sun2306
eerib (2026-06-08 15:30:49+00:00): Hello Sun2306,

I understand you're passionate about this topic especially as it relates to archaeology sites, indigenous knowledge, indigenous wayfinding practices, unceded land, unsanctioned mountain bike trails, and community input. What you're fundamentally arguing for is for community input and concerns to be able to override the ground truth policy which would be a novel interpretation and new policy. This is something better suited for a discussion with the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

As for whether this specific archaeology site should be mapped is a discussion you can have with the Data Working Group rather than trying to extrapolate a policy where one does not exist. This can be accomplished by emailing data@openstreetmap.org. It would be best if you included new photographs of the area including photos at the trail entrance, along the trail, the trail exit, and any posted signage in the area. In your email you can also include a link to my rationale that was in the previous mountain bike discussion with your colleagues.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-is-not-neutral-why-adding-unsanctioned-mtb-trails-endangers-access-and-potentially-lives/132886/82

Cheers, eerib
Sun2306 (2026-06-08 21:36:05+00:00): Hi eerib,

I appreciate your perspective on what I'm arguing for, but I do not necessarily agree. I've contacted some relevant local figures who are more able to weigh in on this discussion than I, and they will bring it up with the Community Forum and the DWG. 

Again, I do not appreciate the association with the members of that mountain bike discussion; the underpinning rationales for the changes we each are interested in pursuing are very different. 

Thank you,
Sun2306
MarcoR (2026-06-06 19:26:47+00:00): Ciao e benvenuti su OpenStreetMap!

Perché hai rimosso quella strada che sembra ancora lì guardando alle foto aeree di Bing/Esri?

P.S. per favore usa un commento meno telegrafico ai tuoi futuri changeset, grazie ^_^"

Buon mapping,
Marco.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183752576
TaveroneBike2026 (2026-06-09 07:18:07+00:00): Credo di aver commesso un errore, stavo cercando di modificare un percorso e per errore potrei aver cancellato anche la strada sottostante, puoi annullare la modifica
MarcoR (2026-06-09 08:37:36+00:00): Grazie per la risposta ;) 
Ho annullato il tuo changeset!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183862841
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-06 19:15:58+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 183687223, 183687288, 183687763, 183687965, 183688114, 183688504, 183688590.
Lewa Todorov (2026-06-09 19:26:52+00:00): Добрий день. Скажіть будь ласка звідки взята інформація про назву районів у місті Калинівка - (Хуторок та Веселка)? Місцеві наче по іншому називають дану місцевість
Fraxi (2026-06-06 19:54:24+00:00): За малко погледнах и снимки от Mapbox, ако трябва да се упомене...
ivanbranco (2026-06-17 16:52:36+00:00): Ciao Loris,

benvenuto su OSM e grazie per le modifiche. Ho delle domande su degli edit.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/623819750
"carioip" è il nome che viene dato dai biker a questo sentiero?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13915274792
cos'è "pian de gnela"? è il nome di quel pratone? ora come ora è mappato come parco ma non sembra corretto (parco su OSM = "Un'area verde, normalmente in un contesto urbano, creato per la ricreazione e il relax.")
Filip009 (2026-06-08 06:22:01+00:00): Hello, please do not ignore errors JOSM shows you. Or if there is warning about downloading whole multipolygon, please do it before uploading. The forest is now dissapearing from osm.org. I have already fix the errors, so forest should apper back.
vajko1970 (2026-06-09 04:51:34+00:00): Hello! Yes, I can see now what I did wrong. Thank you for the correction, and I apologize for the inconvenience!