piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Volker Schrauber (2026-07-12 13:14:12+00:00): Die Garagen am Scherkampsweg 20 sind über den Scherkampsweg zu reeichen, die Garagen nördlich vom Lindemannsweg 21 sind über den Lindemannsweg zu erreichen. Jedoch ist diese Zuwegung zwischen den Garagen nicht durchgehend befahrbar. Ebenso ist der Wer zwischen Lindemannsweg und Scherkampsweg nicht durchgehend befahrbar, denn auf Höhe Lindemannsweg Nr.6 ist der Weg für den KFZ-Verkehr durch Hindernisse gesperrt.
BC168 (2026-07-13 00:39:22+00:00): Ok - da das auf dem Luftbild nicht eindeutig zu erkennen ist, kannst du das eventuell mit deiner Ortskenntnis so eintragen? Ggf. müsste man den Weg eben aufteilen in befahrbare Abschnitte als "Grundstückszufahrt" und nicht befahrbare Abschnitte als Fußweg oder "Pfad", falls es für Fahrräder passierbar ist.

Wenn der Weg an sich breit genug für Kfz wäre, aber Hindernisse die Durchfahrt verhindern, kann man das als Barriere (Zaun, Tor, Poller usw.) erfassen.
ion_chi (2026-07-15 16:04:58+00:00): Hey Lauren,
This changeset left some crossing ways with two separate service roads now connecting 3rd Ave N and 2nd Ave N through ramp B. What exactly were you trying to change?
VLD0251 (2026-07-11 12:23:57+00:00):  Hi cb94,
Please remember to add descriptive comments to your changesets. clear descriptions make it easier to review and follow contributions.
OSM good practices: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Happy mapping!
flohoff (2026-07-11 09:56:47+00:00): Moin,
nur weil da striche im Luftbild zu sehen sind muss das keine Parking lot sein - Vor allem nicht so - Guck mal mapillary bilder an oder fahr mal hin. Die parken da typischerweise eher anders. 

Das hatte schon einen Grund das ich das so nicht eingezeichnet habe.

Flo
stirps (2026-07-13 21:30:12+00:00): Laut vDOP stehen die auch wieder so, wie die Linien es angeben.
So oder so - da stehen Auflieger/Lastwagen für längere Zeit, also ist das zumindest für mich ein (privater) Parkplatz, wäre ja nicht so als hätte ich die einzelnen parking spaces eingezeichnet...


Wäre übrigens gut wenn du auch hier nochmal antworten könntest: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184804096
flohoff (2026-07-14 06:59:17+00:00): Siehe Mapillary, siehe diverse andere Luftbilder. Das war so mal der Parkplatz - Defakto ist das der hof der Spedition und die parken häufig ganz anders und überall.

Da jetzt explizit einen Parkplatz draus zu machen ist halt ziemlich irreführend. Deshalb hab ich es gelassen weil es einfach nicht stimmt nur weil da vor 40 Jahren mal einer Linien auf den Hof gepinselt halt.
Frans S (2026-07-11 13:19:22+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she deliver high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.

C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.

D: Connecting nodes to other features.

E: Buildings not squared or rounded.

F: Buildings partly hidden under trees.


Explanation can be found in this document, which might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards, and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185495979
Frans S (2026-07-11 13:52:35+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she deliver high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.

C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.

D: Connecting nodes to other features.

E: Buildings not squared or rounded.


Explanation can be found in this document, which might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards, and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185496063
lankapuhelin (2026-07-10 19:53:50+00:00): Hyvää työtä, tervetuloa kartoittamaan :)
Udarian (2026-07-10 19:01:15+00:00): I meant sidewalk tagging
Geim (2026-07-26 15:13:27+00:00): Hoi, ik heb MTB Eerde als relatie toegevoegd op de paden hier in de omgeving. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21148049#map=17/51.595900/5.487200&layers=N
Tegelijkertijd heb ik van de tracks paden gemaakt zoals gebruikelijk is bij single trace tracks in het MTB'en.
Jvitegem (2026-07-26 15:59:05+00:00): Top.
Wat ik mij nog afvroeg; moet er geen oneway tag worden toegevoegd aan de MTB paden ?
Geim (2026-07-26 17:18:16+00:00): Die staat er: oneway:bicycle=yes
Ooit eens afgesproken om het op die manier te doen. Ik heb 
bicycle:designated:type=mtb
bicycle=designated
highway=path
horse=no
oneway:bicycle=yes
surface=ground
onder een shortcut staan.
oneway=yes had ook gekund.
amosharper (2026-07-10 19:11:34+00:00): Tagging @LAX_maps to avoid an accidental edit war.

N.B. arguably since Big Ben is the name of the bell specifically, this is not accurately tagged and comes close to tagging for the renderer, but this has been discussed heavily already and I don't wish to contravene that!
YomanNH (2026-07-14 06:10:21+00:00): Zerkniesz? https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5394712
VLD0251 (2026-07-11 13:20:47+00:00): Hello,
Please use more descriptive changeset comments. “UPDATE #ABDULLAH #ALWERFALLI” is too general and does not explain the changes made.
Happy mapping!
hlfan (2026-07-12 08:46:29+00:00): Gibt's da jetzt gar keine Blockmarkierungen mehr?
Negjana (2026-07-12 08:50:30+00:00): Doch doch, sind derzeit als construction:railway:signal getaggt, gehen am 28.07. in Betrieb.
hlfan (2026-07-12 08:52:30+00:00): Aber nur location marker und keine stop marker?
Negjana (2026-07-14 09:46:23+00:00): Es wird beides geben, ich weiß aber noch nicht genau was was sein wird. Werde ich nachtragen.
Negjana (2026-07-15 16:52:04+00:00): Die (künftigen) Stop Marker sind jetzt als solche getaggt.
9_tab (2026-07-10 19:27:43+00:00): Read: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5386910
Frans S (2026-07-11 13:15:35+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she deliver high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.

C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.

D: Connecting nodes to other features.

E: Buildings not squared or rounded.

F: Buildings partly hidden under trees.


Explanation can be found in this document, which might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards, and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185500261
maro21 (2026-07-12 21:41:59+00:00): OpenStreetMap to nie jest twój prywatny brudnopis.
jcarlson (2026-07-16 20:25:24+00:00): these are operated by the school, not the city. operator for sidewalks will typically follow the road, but if the footpath is off on private property, not along the right-of-way, it will probably be something else
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185501625
salgo60 (2026-07-11 00:09:47+00:00): Helt omöjligt att hålla koll på när Naturvårdsverket ändrar naturreservaten. Jag tror att den enda hållbara lösningen är att jämföra ytor och shapefiler mellan versioner. Här är ett tidigare försök att se om dom har någon kontrollerad ändringshantering 
 https://github.com/salgo60/Naturreservat-Sverige/issues/9#issuecomment-4403074064
caprieldeluca (2026-07-10 22:44:41+00:00): Hola, gracias por contribuir con el mapa! 
Revisé el conjunto de cambios, corregí el etiquetado de la calle:
- No corresponde tertiary sino residential. Ver: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Argentina/Etiquetas#Tabla_Resumen:_Clasificaci%C3%B3n_de_V%C3%ADas
- Agregué `noname=yes`. Si sabés el nombre de la calle, por favor eliminá esa etiqueta y etiquetá `name=`.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Argentina#Contacto
stevea (2026-07-13 00:10:54+00:00): Why is this in OSM, again?
Minh Nguyen (2026-07-17 08:37:46+00:00): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/chicago-metropolitan-area-relation/131055/9
TrickyFoxy (2026-07-12 11:59:17+00:00): Не сокращайте названия.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Названия#Сокращения_и_аббревиатуры_(не_используйте_их)
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-11 05:59:33+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is the added name real?
Partial segment of road (1537318175), v2
Xvtn (2026-07-13 16:15:57+00:00): Hi Josh. Any source on your ford addition here? From memory, I'm thinking the bridge actually belongs just north of the trail junction, meaning there is no ford. I've walked this section a few times and don't recall having to wade across the river.
Xvtn (2026-07-13 16:17:14+00:00): Also, please leave a meaningful changeset comment. This helps others review your changes. The commonly cited community guidelines are here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments but honestly if you can just put something, anything, that is better than your current pattern. Thanks.
Frans S (2026-07-11 12:41:16+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she deliver high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.

C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.

D: Connecting nodes to other features.

E: Buildings not squared or rounded.



Explanation can be found in this document, which might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards, and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185504979
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-13 03:31:06+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20941
Trafford_Mapper (2026-07-11 06:29:45+00:00): This drawn in one makes a lot more sense with it having a centre to the circle rather then most which is just a dead end. I've removed the old marked 'Turning Circle' as it's now a surplus to requirements with your new helpful edit.
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-12 18:30:42+00:00): Hi, thanks for adding all of these. Just a quick note that often it's a good idea to square the building. Either in the right click menu, or with "q" when it's selected
Frans S (2026-07-11 13:00:40+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she deliver high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.

C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.

D: Connecting nodes to other features.

E: Buildings not squared or rounded.



Explanation can be found in this document, which might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards, and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185507127
gnlpfth (2026-07-13 16:01:21+00:00): Hallo,
ich habe die Umbenennung wieder rückgängig gemacht. Sie wurde (bisher) weder vor Ort noch online umgesetzt. LG
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-11 13:52:09+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is not allowed on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account; see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information. Specifically, buildings and business POIs added to the map must be visitable physical locations that are verifiable on the ground, and not merely mailing addresses located at private dwellings (which in any event does not exist at the mapped location). Furthermore, use of Google Maps as a source is strictly prohibited by both OSM and Google policies--see https://osm.wiki/Google 

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags, misshapen and apparently non-existent building, and source=* of Google Maps, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185538912
eggie (2026-07-11 06:26:40+00:00): Dag DutchAnitGluut,

De naam  Waterkraan begraafplaats heb ik verwijderd. Svp niet name gebruiken om iets te beschrijven. 
Bv name=bankje, boom, huis. amenity=drinking_water als hoofdtag toegevoegd.

MVG
eggie
deneben (2026-07-11 03:04:51+00:00): Hello ShelbyGT500,

Thank you for your edits to OpenStreetMap. In this changeset, you made a few edits in Wales, before jumping halfway across the world to do a few more in Alaska. This is undesirable because now everyone monitoring new changesets anywhere in the entire box has had this one show up in their list. Here is the wiki link for more info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F#Large_changesets

In the future, please split up your changes into separate changesets before going across the world.

Thanks for your cooperation,
deneben
Everyday4701 (2026-07-10 23:35:29+00:00): Reverted housenumber on relation Lakewood Manor in Changeset 185509495.

Buildings in the relation inherited the relation's housenumber which was incorrect.
finn-hound (2026-07-10 23:35:54+00:00): my bad guys
LordGarySugar (2026-07-11 13:33:27+00:00): Apology accepted on this occasion, Mr. finn-hound
finn-hound (2026-07-11 13:37:52+00:00): :horsecry:
finn-hound (2026-07-11 19:39:10+00:00): was i in your source=dreams  😍
LordGarySugar (2026-07-11 20:33:43+00:00): You weren't in my dreams, but your horrendous tagging mistakes were 💅
finn-hound (2026-07-11 20:44:44+00:00): i need to try 𝓱𝓪𝓻𝓭𝓮𝓻 then 😩
LordGarySugar (2026-07-12 04:19:23+00:00): If I was a DWG member I would give you a 10 year block for whatever that was
finn-hound (2026-07-12 10:34:10+00:00): rejected on osm is crazy work
finn-hound (2026-07-12 13:29:12+00:00): i cant believe i would reuse a joke like that
LordGarySugar (2026-07-12 19:54:10+00:00): 🫶
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 02:20:25+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20932
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 19:00:43+00:00): Thanks for getting these on the map! Usually buildings are made of rectangular parts, so you can use the "square" tool to make them into right angles. In the web editor, you can press "q" with one or more buildings selected, or right click a selection and find the "square" option. Let me know if you have any questions about that.
pseudoautochiria (2026-07-29 23:10:29+00:00): Thanks!
jellyfish twink (2026-07-15 22:14:11+00:00): When did you request clarification? I missed that. What was unclear about the edits?
hoserab (2026-07-11 01:07:35+00:00): Whoa, the bounding box of this change set is huge. Try to make smaller changes next time. 

/s 😋
jhaluska80 (2026-07-12 17:33:59+00:00): Based off the new information in Note #5385809, do you mind reverting this change so we can properly update the access and barriers?
gpserror (2026-07-12 20:44:43+00:00): Might be easier to just fix it if they told us exactly what the entry point is...
rochirochi (2026-07-11 11:02:09+00:00): source=https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/es/consulta/registro.do?id=8259
TheNightRider (2026-07-11 00:52:13+00:00): Also updated phone (source https://www.livebelaire.com/contactus)
user_5359 (2026-07-24 13:29:49+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21139491 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175566924.
NaufalFarras (2026-07-11 02:18:07+00:00): What's with adding three nodes of Ngawi? Only one place=town is enough
NaufalFarras (2026-07-11 02:19:05+00:00): Also please refrain from moving place points by deleting them and creating a new one. It removes change history
Gaung Tebono (2026-07-11 02:21:54+00:00): Place=town Representing the district area, not the regency. So I made it so there's no confusion about which is the district and which is the regency.
NaufalFarras (2026-07-11 02:24:38+00:00): You can use that place=town for both district and the whole regency. That's what the community use right now. Adding another two duplicates won't help, especially the place=state one.
FajrAl (2026-07-11 02:26:00+00:00): don't use `#adt` text when you are not part of Apple Data Mapping Team
Gaung Tebono (2026-07-11 02:44:13+00:00): The problem is that in Indonesia, cities and districts are equal, at the level of second-level regions. If only cities use "place=city" it becomes biased, because districts also have the right to use it.
Ewen Hill (2026-07-11 03:14:45+00:00): Hai! 
 Apologies for this comment to be in English. Firstly, thank you for all your mapping and your willingness to engage. 

To the others in this chat, can you please be a little more kind when commenting. #ADT is not registered   or a controlled tag. Put a positive spin on the comment please.

Terima kasih, dan ayo bersepeda!
f_husni (2026-07-11 03:21:01+00:00): Hallo Gaung Tebono. boleh cek https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14003807421/history/1#map=19/-7.485793/111.276733&layers=N  

kenapa ada tag state ya? apakah ngawi sudah menjadi negara bagian? 

saya beritahu anda bahwa osm memiliki sop sendiri yang di atur di wiki osm. adapun jika anda ingin menyampaikan sesuatu atau kebingungan, lebih baik berdiskusi. 


saat ini ada group osm indonesia yang cukup aktif dan jadi wadah sharing positif. kabari saya jika anda tertarik untuk bergabung.
Gaung Tebono (2026-07-11 03:31:04+00:00): Halo Husni, maaf sebelumnya tag place=state itu murni kesalahan teknis saja bukan karena disengaja. Soalnya fokus tag tersebut untuk menegaskan posisi Ngawi sebagai kabupaten yang setara dengan wilayah kota otonom tingkat dua. Sama seperti desa setara dengan kelurahan dan tidak dibedakan.

Saya hanya fokus menjaga agar label kabupaten tetap memakai "place=city" bukan memakai tag "place=town" seperti pada kebiasaan yang diterapkan pada tag wilayah kecamatan yang satu tingkat dibawah wilayah kabupaten. Maaf saya menilai komunitas OSM ini masih "kurang kritis" dan "kurang teliti" dalam memberi tag label wilayah sehingga dapat menimbulkan perdebatan. Saya beragumen seperti ini karena ingin meluruskan saja bukan berarti niat untuk membuat kebijakan sendiri.
f_husni (2026-07-11 03:56:10+00:00): saran saya, lebih baik kita berdiskusi positif di forum meeting bulanan. 

kebetulan setiap sebulan sekali, osm mappers di fasilitasi untuk berdiskusi via zoom. mungkin kita bisa berdiskusi lebih dalam dan  membawa sumber2 referensi masing2.

jika berkenan mungkin mas gaung bisa bergabung di group osm indonesia https://t.me/osmindonesia  

tenang saja, kami semua baik dan tidak akan ada hate speech atau hal tidak menyenangkan lainnya, asalkan kita bisa berdiskusi dengan kepala dingin dan tentunya membawa sumber2 referensi valid. baik sop wiki osm atau dari aturan2 pemerintah.
NaufalFarras (2026-07-11 02:16:23+00:00): Please do not add administrative boundary to roads/highways. Just use separate way.
Gaung Tebono (2026-07-11 02:20:05+00:00): Okay, I'll adjust it. But the point I'm making here is to represent or "label" Ngawi Regency, not its capital.
Gaung Tebono (2026-07-11 02:57:32+00:00): I'm just clarifying, for regency in Indonesia, the level is equivalent to a city, therefore it is recommended to use place=city to be fair and not biased. This district in Indonesia is a second-level region, just like an autonomous city.
Ewen Hill (2026-07-11 02:59:42+00:00): Tidak apa apa Gaung!
Gaung Tebono (2026-07-11 03:03:24+00:00): What is being discussed here is the equality between regencies and cities, not the equality between districts and the areas below them, including districts. It is very strange if districts are equated with regency. And remember, this marking must follow international standards specifically for this city area, don't follow the wrong community decision to equate the regency with district.
Justin1234 (2026-07-11 03:06:16+00:00): Why did you change all these minor roads to residential? None of them access any houses and are used for local traffic within the commercial areas

openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=residential

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=unclassified

"Most traffic on a residential road will be for the access to residential properties. Roads carrying primarily through traffic, or non-residential traffic, should be tagged with a different highway tag (e.g. unclassified, tertiary) as appropriate (see highways)"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185513890
Justin1234 (2026-07-11 03:15:02+00:00): The name unclassified is a little misleading

"the term "unclassified" originates from the UK road classification system, where it means 'too minor to earn a classification number'. Confusingly, it is indeed a classification, meaning 'very minor road'"
MxxCon (2026-07-14 04:14:09+00:00): Hello.
Please write more descriptive changeset comments. Writing just "Brooklyn" doesn't help other mappers understand what your edit changed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185514238
nevw (2026-07-11 04:45:06+00:00): Hi, you have placed 145 Scenic Drive appartment point on the roadway. #145 does not align with the geocoded address layer for this housenumber.
Please zoom in closer and place the correct address over the correct building for this address.
Geonick (2026-07-12 21:59:06+00:00): Danke WoSoe für deine Aufräumarbeit. TihanMo war in IMS-Lehrling von uns (IFS der FH OST). Das PHZH LAA-Gebäude war sein "Gesellenstück" ("war" weil er nun seine Lehre abgeschlossen hat). 
Er testete dabei auch Mapper-Jonas'  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mapper-Jonas/diary/409011 Diary. 
Beachte dabei, dass TihanMo OsmInEdit verwendete und ich vermute, dass viele Geometriefehler von dort kommen. Ich weiss leider noch nicht, ob das nun Bedienfehler sind oder Editor-bedingt.