piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NieWnen (2026-05-22 12:42:26+00:00): > Ta droga ewidentnie nie jest już w fazie planowania.

Inna interpretacja słowa "planowania" jako czynności dot. projektowania inwestycji, wcale tutaj tego nie oznacza :). To czy jest planowane, czy proponowane ma marginalne znaczenie dla OSM (to nie urząd). To bardziej synonimy w tym kontekście.

Choć niektórzy w tym celu stosują planned:*=* żeby to rozróżniać (dla mnie subiektywnie to już zbyt dużo fikcji).

Zobacz tutaj: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:highway%3Dproposed

" służy do oznaczenia drogi, która ma zostać wkrótce zbudowana, ale której budowa jeszcze się nie rozpoczęła. "

Malowanie flamastrem to za wcześnie na mapowanie w OSM. Ogólnie jeśli mamy więcej niż 1 wariant/nie znamy choćby przybliżonego przebiegu, który raczej się nie zmieni, to nie powinno się znaleźć jeszcze w OSM nawet jako proposed, co potwierdza drugi link.

> Do niedawna była jeszcze wrysowana droga od DW719 na granicy Grodziska i Milanówka w kierunku węzła Grodzisk - nigdy nie planowana. 

I to był błąd, jeśli mówisz o obiekcie dodanym przez Perimexa, który pododawał sporo fikcyjnych dróg. 
I tak, jakiś czas temu było masowe czyszczenie tego typu obiektów.
michal_f (2026-06-01 07:54:33+00:00): Umowa z wykonawcą zawarta 28 maja 2026. Czas realizacji: 6 miesięcy. Czy już może być "construction"?
NieWnen (2026-06-01 09:39:25+00:00): Widziałem, ale niestety nadal nie powinno to być to jeszcze jako construction, a proposed.

Podpisanie umowy, to nie rozpoczęcie prac budowlanych.
Niektórzy dopiero wtedy wrzucają proposed :)

Od tego też potrafi mijać czasem kilka tygodni, a czasem miesięcy. 
Musi się realnie coś dziać w terenie.
Dopiero ta przysłowiowa "wbita łopata", czy np. ogrodzenie terenu przez wykonawcę itp.

Widziałem, że tutaj zapowiadali start robót JESZCZE w czerwcu.
NieWnen (2026-06-02 16:38:12+00:00): https://ugb.ezamawiajacy.pl/pn/ugb/demand/notice/public/218692/details

Jeszcze nadzór :P
mueschel (2026-05-25 13:54:31+00:00): Hi, 
"cyclezone" is not a common tag. Did you mean "cyclestreet"?
silversurfer83 (2026-05-23 07:38:54+00:00): Hi :)

das Wiki sagt, dass wir um einzeln erfasste amenity=parking_space immer eine Fläche mit amenity=parking legen sollen. 

Kleiner Hinweis zu deinem Editor: Es sollte eine Taste geben, die dir weitere Werkzeuge zeigt, wenn du ein Objekt ausgewählt hast. Da sollte eine Möglichkeit zu finden sein, ein Objekt rechtwinklig (oder rund) zu machen. Grad bei Gebäuden oder Parkplätzen sehr nützlich um schöne Geometrien zu erhalten.

happy mapping :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182993898
Carnildo (2026-05-22 23:13:59+00:00): East Indiana is not primary -- not even close.  Seven years ago, before it got narrowed to one lane each way, it saw maybe 20% the traffic of the Division-Ruby couplet.  Traffic has fallen since then.

More generally, if everything is important, then nothing is.  As things stand right now, there's nothing to distinguish Division/Ruby (50k vehicles/day) from Maple/Ash (40k) from Hamilton (30k) from Washington (20k) from Monroe (17k).
AriAlvarez (2026-05-22 23:37:33+00:00): Feel free to change the data you disagree with, thank you
felipeeugenio (2026-05-21 20:49:47+00:00): Note	Contributor	⏱️ Last updated	Action	Comment
5303582 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 1 minute ago	closed	ok
5303589 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 1 minute ago	closed	ok
5303586 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 1 minute ago	closed	ok
Mecklenburgische Seenplatte (2026-05-21 20:55:12+00:00): #Vandalism
Wahrscheinlich wieder dieser Wirhalt da ...
NeisRevert (2026-05-21 20:55:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/182995119
where the comment is: "Vandalism"
NeisRevert (2026-05-21 20:55:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/182995115
where the comment is: "Vandalism"
Mecklenburgische Seenplatte (2026-05-21 20:59:35+00:00): Ja, ich glaub, es reicht, wenns da einmal steht. Du hast es jetzt zweimal gepostet.
NeisRevert (2026-05-22 09:55:34+00:00): Ich bin vor "Freude" halt zweimal auf den Knopf gekommen. Aus diesem Grund wurden zwei Changesets erstellt. Zweimal hält besser. Doppelt und identisch ist es nicht ... ;)
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-22 10:31:57+00:00): @Mecklenburgische%20Seenplatte
Respekt, wie schnell Du diesen Fall hier erkannt hast.

Wenn ich mir den Zeitstempel deines Kommentars anschaue (22:55:12 Uhr) war dies lediglich 60 Sekunden nach dem veröffentlichen dieses Edits (Changeset) über das OSM Ökosystem in Form des dazugehörigen Diffs. 

Sachen gibt es halt ;)
NeisRevert (2026-05-22 10:38:49+00:00): Um es abschließend noch einmal deutlich zu schreiben: Dieses Changeset mit dessen Änderungen und Kommentar ist #Vandalismus und gehört nicht ins und zum OpenStreetMap Projekt.

#HappyMapping
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-22 10:40:14+00:00): User has been blocked https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20674
FajrAl (2026-05-22 13:06:09+00:00): I suggest that the "road" on the river bank be labeled as a highway=footway
Berdly (2026-05-23 01:32:39+00:00): Thanks for the feedback! I do personally believe it’s more of a highway=pedestrian than a highway=footway, but feel free to implement changes as you see fit, as I am only one person and my interpretations aren’t what everyone would do.
HurricaneGator (2026-05-26 19:15:17+00:00): Hello Oscarín Orbitus,

I noticed that you added destination=Usaquén;Chapinero;Bogotá centro;La Calera (El Codito);San Cristobal to (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25123220). Mapillary from October 6th, 2025 (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1352701436507112) doesn’t show destination signage. Would you be able to share the source you used for this update? If you have access to more recent ground-level imagery or photos, would you be willing to upload them to an OSM-compatible platform such as Mapillary and KartaView listed in (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street-level_imagery_services)? That would allow other contributors to verify and reference the signage as well.

Thanks in advance, and happy mapping!
Oregonian3 (2026-05-21 21:24:32+00:00): The Lexington/Heppner area is probably big enough that it should be served by a primary road. OregonDOT traffic counts data indicate that OR 207 from the north is by far the most common route into the area. The OR 19 route also makes a lot of sense coming from the west (more-so than the direct OR 74 route since the latter is very slow and winding).

I had trouble avoiding a primary spur into Heppner though. The only real possible candidates are OR 74 to the east (way too circuitous and curvy to the point that going around via OR 207 is faster), Forest Road 53 to the east (a seasonal road that's closed most of the year), and OR 206/207 to the south (also both very circuitous/windy with almost no traffic). None of those make any sense to upgrade to primary, so a primary spur it is.
BerryTrails (2026-05-26 10:45:59+00:00): Hey birdlawyer
I noticed that you changed the classification from motorway to secondary, but motorway is the correct classification here. This is the main motor highway in Madagascar. My team is actively working in this country and we have conducted a proper survey of this route. The highway directly connects the landlocked capital city, Antananarivo, to Madagascar’s largest and most important commercial port city, Toamasina. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_autoroute  find these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR1_highway 
Please change your edits again. The motorway classification is correct for this highway based on the ground survey and its importance as the primary connection between Antananarivo and Toamasina.
birdlawyer (2026-05-27 19:57:47+00:00): Hello BerryTrails, thank you for reaching out!

I downgraded this section of motorway to secondary because it has multiple at-grade intersections, which doesn’t match the global definition for a feature tagged as highway=motorway. According to the highway=motorway wiki page a motorway has controlled access and no at-grade intersections, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=motorway. You are indicating that this project is currently underway, maybe motorway would be a more appropriate classification when the project is complete, and there are no at-grade 	intersections present?

I also noticed that you mentioned your team in your comment and profile description, but I’m not sure what team you are a part of. Keep in mind the organized editing guidelines that teams must adhere to: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines.

Thank you for the feedback and happy mapping!
birdlawyer
World_Winner (2026-05-23 15:17:16+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 183072635
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-21 22:12:32+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.

"Dworek":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1041239723
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1108607309

"Mojesz":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1110901657
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1316902464
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1518502386
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1518502387
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1518502395

"Mojesz Dolny":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212888412

"Płóczki Górne":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1219696423
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1518502382

"Rakowice Wielkie":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1332650219
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1518502402

"Rakowice Małe":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1518502414
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1518502416

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Antiflock_AF (2026-05-21 22:14:37+00:00): I need to edit the direction by 180*.
dzamper (2026-05-22 09:45:52+00:00): Tag boundary=administrative jest już na relacji (np. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/383221 ), nie ma potrzeby dodawania go na linii
melbournefan (2026-05-25 07:51:34+00:00): Lachlan, I've had to revert this changeset.

While Open Street Maps has few rules on mapping, the rules say that data entered in both has to be 'legal', which means that you have to obtain the data from somewhere which in other words we're allowed to use and be verifiable.

I've noticed you've collected the information for this changeset from 'planning documents', could you provide a link where you obtained these documents from? I have not observed anything available on the public internet which has detailed plans of changes to trackwork in the South Kensington area, any plans would be proprietary to the company who authored those plans and therefore cannot be used on Open Street Maps, if you want to accurately add data an old fashioned survey and using an app such as Street Complete, or even taking photographs will mean much more to the map than adding information which both was obtained via non public sources and unobservable
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182998018
LachlanTansey2009 (2026-05-26 04:05:00+00:00): I used the planning documents initially and yes, they are public initially but wanted to go out in person to confirm. From what I saw, It looked as if the junction from the Main Suburban lines into the Metro Tunnel had been lifted but riding past on a train yesterday I saw that the junction was still in place. I also tagged the remainder of the Main Suburban towards North Melbourne as disused as I didn't see a way that the tracks would be used especially since they are unelectrified now and I have a photo to prove the wires being removed.
Shelvacu (2026-05-21 23:19:09+00:00): See https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6547#issuecomment-4513411340
aharvey (2026-05-22 00:47:03+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483990883/history appears to be a duplex, not detached.

The address overlay shows https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483952800/history as being 3 with 3A behind.

The lot overlay shows https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483952801/history as being a duplex.

I don't want to change this if you're added this data from a ground survey, in case the references I'm using are wrong, but they seem to suggest the data is wrong here. What source did you use for those addresses and building types?
dsymonds (2026-05-22 00:58:43+00:00): 10 Olympia is free-standing house; I don't think it's a duplex (e.g. there's only one letterbox). Same applies to 1 Grandview.

Wasn't sure about 3 and 3A (and 1 and 1A), but was going to go for a walk today to check before adjusting.

This is generally from local knowledge.
aharvey (2026-05-22 01:32:39+00:00): Thanks. 10 Olympia shows a fence in the backyard, and officially has two addresses 10 and 10A, but that could be outdated.
Udarian (2026-05-22 16:46:56+00:00): Thank you so much for this, I just have one slight nit here. Can you please double check the alignment of node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/470508316 as the shape of way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/87383888 going into way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913065350 at that point seems off to me (specifically the angle between the two ways seem off to me). 

Happy mapping,
Udar.
FDOT_Ryan (2026-05-22 19:07:28+00:00): We appreciate community feedback and involvement. Pease adjust how you see fit and have a good Memorial Day weekend!

-Ryan
Udarian (2026-05-22 22:15:26+00:00): I can't make and changes as the latest imagery in the area is from (in my estimate) early Jan of 2025 or late December of 2024 and thus does not have enough information to determine that and I do not have access to what ever internal source you have access to that gave you the info you used to make this change. you would have to make any changes.

happy mapping,
Udar.
webfil (2026-07-30 14:24:29+00:00): Bonjour. Merci de cesser d'ajouter des projets imaginés d'autoroute.
Supaplex (2026-05-22 01:38:46+00:00): Updata Taiwan is a very vague term, can you use more specific area or describing waht you change?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182999092
ocrho (2026-05-23 01:07:54+00:00): Hello Supaplex,
In Germany it is common that the place is sufficient as a change comment. In Taiwan it is difficult with the location names, so I used "Update Taiwan" for myself. I have already commented on the last change in more detail, if this is more common in Taiwan. Regards, ocrho
StC (2026-05-22 07:26:36+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là. Je corrigerais volontiers, s'il n'y avait pas un pont qui se termine nulle part au niveau de la rue du pont de pierre.
josmougn (2026-05-22 07:40:40+00:00): tout à fait.
Vous avez fait passer une relation pédestre par un chemin que j'avais pourtant explicitement tagué avec access=no.
StC (2026-05-22 08:20:09+00:00): oui chef, bien chef. Que dit le terrain ?
josmougn (2026-05-22 09:40:54+00:00): " Que dit le terrain ?"
Bonne question, il aurait fallu se la poser avant de faire ce changement : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137623448

osm reflète bien le terrain.

Concernant la relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15883459 je n'ai pas vu de marque "coquille St-Jacques" dans cette zone mais je peux retourner voir de plus près s'il y en a.
pyrog (2026-05-22 16:23:16+00:00): J'ai regardé de mon côté avec les photos dans Mapillary et Panoramax.
... et confronté mes observations avec la trace GPX de l'asso Compostelle 2000, et leur description détaillée.

La trace est trop simplifiée. La description n'est pas trop claire pour moi. Elle doit correspondre à cette section : 
"Le chemin descend. 50 mètres après le stop, laisser le chemin principal partir à droite, monter à gauche et suivre le sentier qui longe au plus près le long mur de béton sur notre gauche, balisé jaune et bleu"
pyrog (2026-05-22 18:07:23+00:00): J'ai fait une correction avec le passage probable de l'itinéraire.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183034570#map=19/48.740224/2.274840&layers=PN
josmougn (2026-05-24 14:27:07+00:00): Correction faite après visite et photos sur place à traquer les marques jaune bleu et les coquilles stylisées. L'itinéraire passe le long du caisson TGV (et ne passe plus Rue de la Gravelle).

Si vous êtes en relation avec les personnes qui font le marquage sur le terrain, il faudrait leur dire que c'est une mauvaise idée de jalonner l'itinéraire pédestre par la partie goudronnée de la Coulée Verte qui est de fait à l'usage des vélos mais qu'il faudrait jalonner clairement les chemins piétons voisins comme c'est fait pour le GR. Cela évite des conflits d'usage.
pyrog (2026-05-25 09:26:19+00:00): Pour éviter la rue de la Gravell, l'itinéraire tourne à gauche à ce panneau https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=13872343710&map=18.0/48.7452/2.2777

J'ai retrouvé un jalon sur tes photos de 2023
https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr/?pic=bdea57c9-1020-48f4-9edf-50dd2f4e928d et je cherches les autres...

Je ferais passer l'info lors de ma prochaine visite  à Compostelle 2000.

Merci José pour les contrôle sur le terrain et les corrections.
fortera_au (2026-05-22 01:28:23+00:00): Hi, the highway=unclasssified should be a highway=service and service=driveway going all the way along the driveway. For the walkway, I'm not sure if there's value in mapping that, but if so, it should be access=private. access=no means nobody can go there legally, even the owners in this case.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182999229
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-28 23:11:10+00:00): DWG revert - remove descriptive names

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184766558
QuiLe (2026-05-22 01:38:40+00:00): Hello there, can you please confirm that these pickleball courts have these names directly or are they dscriptive names to describe the pickleball courts? 

If these are descriptive names which they look like they are they should be removed. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Invented_and_real_names
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182999821
schobbish (2026-05-22 03:03:27+00:00): Hi there and thanks for reverting! I will add that automated edits should be discussed beforehand, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct (I assume it’s automated due to 'batch' in your comment and the use of a bespoke editor).
Cast324 (2026-05-22 03:26:36+00:00): Sounds good this was for a tool/application I was developing. I didn't know about the descriptive names rule so I have turned of my tool and will avoid those types of edits in the future. Thanks!
neuhausr (2026-05-28 18:30:57+00:00): Hi, it looks like you've been doing a lot of editing in this area, thanks! Wondering if you could adjust the buildings on Broadway so they don't overlap the sidewalk? It looks like a lot of buildings are traced to the roofline (which is distorted due to angle the imagery was taken at, especially for taller buildings) rather than the footprint. Some discussion of this distortion is on this wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roof_modelling  Thanks and happy mapping!
look4book (2026-05-22 10:31:44+00:00): Hallo und vielen Dank fürs aufmerksame Karrieren! Ich versuche gerade nachzuvollziehen, wie es zu dem zweiten Punkt kam. Möglicherweise spielt der Natursteinkreis eine Rolle?
Map-Peter (2026-05-25 21:46:30+00:00): Hallo look4book,
 
Karriere?  
Steinkreis?  
Ich "verstehe nur Bahnhof".
 
Gruß Peter
look4book (2026-05-26 06:55:27+00:00): Hallo Peter - (Hinweis für alle Wartenden: Auf Gleis 42 hat Einfahrt der ICE "Godot".) Sorry für die Verwirrung: bei der Karriere hat scheints die Rechtschreibprüfung auf dem so smarten Phone ihre "Intelligenz" spielen lassen, es sollte ein Dank fürs _Kartieren_ werden, den ich gern wiederhole. Mit Steinkreis meinte ich den Findlingsgarten, den ich jetzt auf dem Luftbild westlich vom Buteberg finde. Der wars also auch nicht. Wenn nichts dagegen spricht, lösche ich den zweiten Gipfel auf eigene Kappe.
nevw (2026-05-22 07:38:10+00:00): If you change imagery to Esro you will be able to map it properly.
FajrAl (2026-05-23 06:08:48+00:00): Untuk fitur penggunaan lahan atau tutupan lahan, praktiknya tidak boleh ditempelkan ke jalan atau batas administrasi. Dalam iD editor bisa disembunyikan fiturnya dengan tekan tombol U.
pwbriggs (2026-05-28 06:16:50+00:00): Thanks. If possible, do try to write more meaningful changeset comments. Other editors do see your changeset comments and it helps a lot to be able to know what you were trying to edit.

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-22 05:53:55+00:00): Could you please also revert your other 3 CS where you did the same thing? Thanks!
fortera_au (2026-05-23 01:04:40+00:00): I would say that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49903202 needs to be split. The portion in the caravan park is permissive, but from the beach up to the walking/cycle track is public.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183001676
markkoch (2026-05-25 00:38:48+00:00): Fair enough - are you able to do that please?
Free gems 8 (2026-05-22 04:11:47+00:00): Okay so you say there is highway classification problems. The definition says motorway should only include government defined motorway, two side linking highway or one side linking highway. But sometimes the defined motorway by government ends before the next intersection, so is that "motorway ramp"? And sometimes i saw people edit like the roads are "independent", eg kwai chung road southern from kwai chung linking to route number 5, it is a single lane road only linking to motorway, so it should be a "ramp" but it was defined as "primary road". Sometimes the "ramp" of primary roads was defined as "secondary" as a part of the smaller roads. This doesn't make sense.

So here i want to ask, how to define "motorway" or not? It is ridiculous to see the NE direction of lung shan road is non motorway due to a non motorway joint in the southern exit of tunnel, and the SW direction is motorway as the roads only go to highway since the roundabout at Loi Tung.

There is another problem in Tsing Yi Coastal Road, the East direction should be non-motorway part as a road of non-motorway joined near 行政大樓. This is an independence problem. Should it defined as a independent road (primary)? Or as a (motorway) ramp? But that doesnt make sense as no other classification road should joint the motoway ramp while the rap still continues.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-22 07:59:51+00:00): 1. Using `lanes=1` to determine `=*_link`  doesn't make sense 
2. Why is it "ridiculous"? It's reflecting the reality on where you will end up on Expressway. This is following `=motorway_link` , and `motorway=no` is used for the extent. 
3. See 3
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-05-23 11:34:11+00:00): HI! We usually don't merge dual carriageways when that near to the intersection. Thanks!
Spanwar_lyft (2026-05-27 04:30:53+00:00): Hi ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy,
My name is Suraj, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thanks a lot for reaching out.
Regarding the changes I made: I modified the geometry because there was signage indicating an “only right turn” based on Lyft-owned street level imagery, (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1akyuVOZBERhGZBatqll7wgv4I_dkfo_H/view?usp=sharing) from 13th May, 2026. Instead of adding two separate “only right” restrictions on way(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1378889301) & way(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1519562024), I merged them after modifying the geometry. However, I understand that dual carriageways generally should not be merged in this way, and I acknowledge that this was an oversight on my part. I sincerely apologize for that.
At present, the signage indicates “only right,” while you added “no left turn” restrictions on both ways. Functionally, both approaches achieve the same routing behavior.
Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Suraj
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-05-27 10:25:29+00:00): OK, perfect, thanks!