piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Udarian (2026-07-29 02:14:08+00:00): the destination tagging on way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48419938 was already correct as destination=* refers to the roads and places on the signs, this does not include the id/reference number of a road like US 1 and I 95, these get tagged in destination:ref=*, there is also the fact that on the sign on the gantry in the bing streetside it is signed as TO US 1 and I 95 meaning that destination:ref:to=* is the correct place for US 1 and I 95 to go and that is where they already where. for more info see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination:ref, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Destination_details and  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref.

happy mapping,
Udar.
schuettecarsten (2026-07-28 20:47:46+00:00): That company no longer exists at that address.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 17:54:16+00:00): I appreciate you trying to fix the issues I identified in changeset 186534842 , but while the road connection is fine, unfortunately when it comes to the geometry of the footway connecting to the building and entrances it seems this has created more issues than it solves

https://osm.org/changeset/186534842

Specifically:

- The footway still shares a node with the building that isn't tagged as an entrance.
- Additionally, it is glued to the building perimeter instead of being separate and following the actual footway centerline
- Furthermore, in doing so you unintentionally dragged the outline of the building
- Meanwhile, one entrance is a node at the end of a footway with no connection to the building, and another is a node in the middle of a footway with no building connection either
- Also, in general one OSM building should only have one main entrance, and in any case these are entrances to apartments rather than a proper main entrance as defined on OSM https://osm.wiki/Tag:entrance%3Dmain
- Additionally, I'd like to remind you once again of iD's "square" tool to make an object (like the vegetable garden, for instance), that is rectangular in real life perfectly rectangular in OSM--the vegetable garden appears to actually be square, but it is drawn quite misshapen.

You _can_ add entrances to a building without adding an explicit footway to them, but in general it doesn't make sense to add an entrance that isn't attached to a building, especially not in the middle of a footway (as it would imply that people walking down the footway have to go through the entrance. Instead, if you want to connect the entrances to the footway, you need to add a separate footway that goes from the footway around the building to that entrance.

Since this involves some non-trivial geometry fixes to unglue the footway, and to demonstrate what I mean, I've fixed this for you in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186600545
Dawid2849 (2026-07-28 21:34:24+00:00): Cześć, tu naprawdę jest zakaz jazdy prosto?
Frans S (2026-07-29 12:13:56+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Well mapped.. 
Just a remark. Don't tag long through going  traces as a track.
Check the highway wiki Africa where you can see the purpose of highways.
Best regards
AEJubeily (2026-07-29 15:28:16+00:00): Hello, thank you for trying to help Saida. Yet, these buildings in real life are all connected with no almost no gaps in between them. Your change doesn't reflect how it looks in real life or satellite view.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186544101
NieWnen (2026-07-29 22:50:43+00:00): Cześć,
jeśli to są CPR np. tutaj: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1545507296 

to powinno to być highway=path zamiast highway=footway

patrząc jednak na to,że cpr jest oznaczony po drugiej stronie oraz przejście również zostało tak otagowane wygląda to na błąd w tagowaniu i należy pousuwać tagi bicycle=designated foot=designated oraz segregated.

Jeśli chodzi o tagowanie przy rondzie, to CPR powinniśmy mapować jako 1 linia jeśli nie ma tam fizycznej bariery typu pas zieleni/płot itp. i z tego co widzę to tak było, więc te zmiany wyglądają niestety na niepoprawne.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rower%C3%B3w
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 18:28:16+00:00): Good job; your service=parking_aisle classifications (and non-classifications) were all correct here. Thanks!
BCNorwich (2026-07-29 04:35:30+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. You say it's a gate but you don't tag it as a gate or any type of barrier. The "access to garages" is via the service road, but you've not joined your node to that road; thus, no restrictions are on the access to the garages.

Perhaps if you could explain what your intention is, I might be able to help.

Regards Bernard.
ftrebien (2026-07-28 21:31:22+00:00): Mais vandalismo. Rua da Praia não tem nenhuma placa de 40 km/h, mas tem 1 de 30 km/h e várias de 20 km/h.
Taya_S (2026-07-29 08:53:19+00:00): See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/21027
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 18:38:03+00:00): The pedestrian crossing tagging is correct, but there is indeed an issue here that you were noticing: the original service way geometry was misaligned, drawing it over the pedestrian median rather than to the right of it. I corrected this to match the actual physical geometry in changeset 186603031

https://osm.org/changeset/186603031
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 19:12:44+00:00): One issue here--keep straight ways straight: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_straight_ways_straight

So no need to add extra nodes here along straight lines :)

Cleaned up in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186604978
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 19:13:05+00:00): (Other than that, seems fine to me)
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 19:23:04+00:00): It's fine to tag the two northern ways you added as parking aisles (as they are stubs off what is clearly the main service way).

However, with regard to the southern service way you added, as I've explained to you on previous changesets, the general rule on OSM is to only map multiple ways if there is physical separation that a vehicle could not trivially cross (a barrier, median, etc). There, it is isn't two one-ways, it is a single two way service road with not so much as a painted line between the directions. (Also, it doesn't make sense to have one be a parking aisle, and one not).

When you see these arrows in parking lots, if there's only a single arrow that generally means a one-way, but when you see a pair of two line this, that explicitly indicates a two-way (with it also being the implicit default, usually).

Fixed, and cleaned up the geometry in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186605536
cartografy (2026-07-28 21:32:56+00:00): Additional source for geometry edit: Vantor satellite imagery via Vantor Hub 2026-03-28
felipeeugenio (2026-07-29 15:14:17+00:00): Hola Tommy
Si dos areas naturales están juntas, entonces juntarlas.
Esas separaciones de un pequeño espacio entre dos cosas que evidentemente están juntas no son correctas. salvo que pase un canal o algo asi.
Solo en landuse= y natural=

Con los caminos es otra cosa.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186545334
pwbriggs (2026-07-31 07:51:24+00:00): Meaning it does not exist on the ground? Or that you expect WSDOT to remove it soon? If it's not there, go ahead and delete that segment of road.

Thanks!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 19:09:11+00:00): Unfortunately, your change here was not quite right. The original buildings were all correctly square and matched their actual outline on the ground (as shown on Bing imagery). However, it seems you modified them to crudely match the distorted geometry from the ESRI imagery, due to lack of orthorectification. This is essentially the same problem I pointed out from your changeset 186431582, just that in this case the ESRI imagery is the one that is off-angle.

https://osm.org/changeset/186431582

Essentially, what is happening here is the camera is not perfectly above the building, so higher floors are skewed away from its true outline at ground level. Looking at the image, you can see the sides of the building to the south and west, while the roof overlaps more to the north and west (so the plane/camera was to the southwest when taking this image).

The solution here is the same as I instructed you in that changeset: check carefully for this issue, consult multiple imagery sources, trace the building from ground level and be highly suspicious of a change from a normal squared shape to a highly skewed and unlikely geometry like this.

Therefore, I reverted these changes in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186604645
Viajero Perdido (2026-07-28 22:25:33+00:00): Feel free to revert if the bridge is ever restored.
kpv8 (2026-07-29 07:08:04+00:00): Dlaczego usunąłeś nazwę klasztor z klasztoru? Tak samo z Tężni gdzie było dogadane że można tak tagować.
kpv8 (2026-07-29 07:08:52+00:00): I na jakiej podstawie stwierdzasz że coś nie istnieje? Byłeś tam?
Parowiec Świecący (2026-07-29 15:43:20+00:00): Skoro jest dodana atrakcja turystyczna o nazwie Klasztor Paulinów, to powielenie tej nazwy na budynku jest zbędne. Co do tężni, to nie wiem, gdzie tak było dogadane, bo dokumentacja tak nie stanowi (a mówi wprost, że jakakolwiek nazwa powinna być dodana tylko wtedy, gdy jest to faktyczna nazwa własna konkretnego obiektu, nie zaś opis typu obiektu). Istnienie bądź nieistnienie firmy można sprawdzić w rejestrach - nie trzeba jechać na miejsce, by sprawdzić, że dana firma została wykreślona z CEIDG albo KRS.
eggie (2026-07-29 08:02:35+00:00): Dag Davy,

Aan wie moet ik toestemming vragen om daar te fietsen?
bicycle=permit?
Waarom access=no?
Meestal wordt access=no onterecht gebruikt.
Waarom mag ik daar kennelijk wel fietsen, maar niet wandelen?
Wat is je bron in deze?

MVG
eggie
DavyS32 (2026-07-30 04:34:07+00:00): Hallo, het gebied bevat specifieke MTB single tracks, dat als wandelpad gebruiken is not done. Omfekeerd mag je ook niet MTB'en om niet aangegeven paden. Bron: https://grensparkkalmthoutseheide.com/mountainbiken-veelgestelde-vragen/
Mag ik van de routes afwijken?

////
Nee. Gebruik alleen de singletracks en de openbare wegen.. Wandelpaden of niet aangeduide paadjes zijn dus niet toegelaten. Onze routes liggen in unieke natuur die behoren tot Europese Netwerken van beschermde natuurgebieden. Als je op de route blijft, breng je de natuur geen onnodige schade toe. Zo kun jij genieten en  kunnen wij samen met onze partners de waarde van de natuur in stand houden.
///
eggie (2026-07-30 04:39:56+00:00): Oke, maar de consequstie van zo taggen is dan wel dat het niet routeert voor MTB.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-07-30 04:50:35+00:00): Typo consequentie
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-31 07:33:24+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/21039
John Pole (2026-07-29 13:58:53+00:00): Hi Mark! I love seeing new folks excited about adding golf course details to OSM. If you check my edit history, you'll see I've spent a lot of time in the last few months doing golf-related tasks on here as well.

With that said, we're generally looking for a more refined quality of edits/shapes than what you've put together in this changeset. Your tags seem fine, but your polygons leave a bit to be desired.

I just submitted another changeset -- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186586589 -- where I updated hole 18 of this course to more accurately reflect the quality of mapping we prefer to see.

Don't hesitate to reach out (either via messages/comments here or on the OSMUS Slack -- there's a #golf channel!) if you have any questions.
Mark Brockway (2026-07-30 12:03:02+00:00): Hi John - thanks for reaching out and for the feedback.  Holly Hills was my first attempt at mapping a course from scratch and I was figuring it out as I went - going back to it the polygons do look pretty bad.  I since figured out that zooming in helps a lot, I took another pass at it and hopefully it looks improved.  I'll check out the Slack channel.
b-jazz (2026-07-31 00:29:29+00:00): Thanks Mark. Another thing you might want to be aware of is that your polygons shouldn't overlap each other. If you look at node 14057315719, you can see that the fairway and green are overlapping. Instead, you should share each and every node at the boundary of these two polygons. If you don't, the Q/A tools will pick up on that and someone will have to spend time cleaning up the mistakes (which takes away from other mapping work.)

You might want to look at the wiki pages in the golf_course wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course that will try to explain some of these things in more detail.

Again, thanks for your attention and for being responsive to communications. It's much appreciated.
ftrebien (2026-07-28 23:09:01+00:00): Está errada a alteração neste changeset. Da entrada do Jardim do Trevo (a metade norte do trecho laterado), o limite é 50 km/h, conforme a sinalização local.
Educador Maps (2026-07-29 02:48:08+00:00): Alteração está correta, porque há placas indicando 60km/h, conforme a sinalização local!
Taya_S (2026-07-29 08:53:15+00:00): See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/21027
MassCartog (2026-07-29 22:46:15+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. Try to be careful not to unintentionally drag when you're editing the map, and if you do, do not commit the changes. Thanks.
Wildsharky (2026-07-30 08:51:12+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186629919
Udarian (2026-07-28 23:54:07+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
baotao (2026-07-29 02:26:16+00:00): 根据osm wiki以及社区共识，副站名请写在alt_name里，不要用括号。name标签只写主站名才是正确的。

OSM wikiおよびコミュニティの合意によれば、セカンダリサイト名は括弧なしで`alt_name`フィールドに記述する必要があります。`name`タグにはメインサイト名のみを記述してください。これが正しい方法です。
baotao (2026-07-29 02:39:28+00:00): 蜗牛的官方名称非写不可的话请写在official_name。
紬ヴェンダース (2026-07-31 23:19:37+00:00): Citation Needed
MassCartog (2026-07-29 22:26:59+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM. Try not to remove features that do exist but are not 100% correct until you actually have better data than what is found in OSM. I took a shot at better aligning the road. From satellite imagery here. If you get better data, feel free to update it, but don't remove it!

Also, instead of removing, try to update features. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history
ftrebien (2026-07-29 15:10:29+00:00): Este changeset apresenta o mesmo problema comentado em outros changeset: uso de barrier=kerb na mesma geometria de highway=footway + footway=sidewalk. Conforme a documentação, o meio-fio (barrier=kerb) representa uma feição distinta da calçada e deve ser mapeado em elemento separado (ou, quando apropriado, apenas por pontos nas travessias). Peço mais uma vez que esse padrão não seja utilizado nas próximas contribuições.
O Fim (2026-07-31 13:42:31+00:00): Babaca editei assim apenas pra te chatear , vire homem com caráter.
rajdhani (2026-07-31 09:15:22+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186694035
Joel Koen (2026-07-29 00:25:16+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Do you have a source for this change? It's difficult to tell with government data, but the you seem to have changed the whole track when at least the north part seems to be its own dedicated land parcel. You can see this with the "QLD Land Parcels" overlay.
Bulimba Creek (2026-07-29 01:10:07+00:00): Hi Joel,  We certainly didn't mean to change the whole track, only the section which passes through Mount Elliott Nature Refuge. This is private land with no access for the safety and biosecurity reasons.  

https://bulimbacreek.org.au/activities/mount-elliot/
Joel Koen (2026-07-29 01:33:21+00:00): My apologies, I misunderstood the access tags when looking at the track, your changes are correct.

Do you know if there is a gate at the ends of the track where it transitions into Mount Elliot Nature Refuge?
ricaestevao (2026-07-29 00:41:36+00:00): As linhas administrativas dos bairros: Roosevelt, Pacaembú e Santa Rosa estavam quebradas e já está corrigido
ForestFurnace (2026-07-29 01:07:24+00:00): *NYSDOP Orthoimagery, not PEMA Orthoimagery
ForestFurnace (2026-07-29 01:07:34+00:00): *NYSDOP Orthoimagery, not PEMA Orthoimagery
Loopslol7 (2026-07-29 02:09:27+00:00): USGS for alignment and ESRI for more local information
nerihv (2026-07-29 02:15:22+00:00): mapeado con esri 2025 comparado con mapboxpara definir el contorno de la forma.
Tengo dos edificaciones que se ven en mapbox( fecha no definida, desplazamiento 2.66, -0.73) que no sé si tapó a vegetación o son eventuales y ya no existen, de todos modos las dibujé.
rajdhani (2026-07-31 05:40:43+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186686181
nerihv (2026-07-29 02:18:29+00:00): mapeado con bing , comparado con esri desplazamiento 0.65, 0.86
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:06:04+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:06:03+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:06:02+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
user_5359 (2026-07-31 16:27:41+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13913447601. What is the mean of the tag
ad = 中平路270巷5號 · 新北市 · 242
?
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:06:01+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:06:00+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:05:59+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:05:58+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:05:57+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:05:56+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 15:05:55+00:00): Based on previous vandalism we are concerned these nodes do not exist. If they do, please DM me so we can have a conversation about accuracy and keeping DeFlock / OSM accurate. 

Thanks,
alpacaMaps
nerihv (2026-07-29 03:18:56+00:00): bing 2022 más actualizada
comparads con  esri -3.35, 0.95
MappingMore (2026-07-31 05:30:05+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186685825
felipeeugenio (2026-07-29 14:34:25+00:00): Hola. Tomó las secciones de tumbas que cuadré ayer y las dejó todas chuecas.

no hay problemas con eso, son errores fáciles de reparar. Pero prefiero que termine todas sus ediciones antes de comenzar a corregir, ya que veo que hay un trabajo en curso.
Por favor tomar los tips que le he dejado en emnsajes anteriores para hacer las correcciones y después vamos viendo.

Puede unirse al chat de la comunidad en el link en mi perfil. La idea nuestra es ayudarlo y en el chat es más fácil.

saludos y bienvenido
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186559746
felipeeugenio (2026-07-29 14:32:22+00:00): Hola.
=path es un sendero en un cerro. Lo que tienes aquí son =footway

Adicionalmente, por favor ser consistente con el access=. Creo que están todos con permissive, quizas private, pero si se agrega ese tag a uno, hay que agregarlo a todos.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186560100
felipeeugenio (2026-07-29 14:08:29+00:00): HOla. Por favor cuadrar las estructuras con la letra Q. estás están hechas a pulso y me imagino que en verdad no tienen esas formas.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186561447
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-29 06:55:53+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM. 

This edit has changed/added a proposed primary road into highway=motorway, making it appear as an existing, routable road. The added foot=yes, bicycle=yes, and motor_vehicle=yes tags may also route users over infrastructure that is not open.

Please change the road to highway=proposed + proposed=primary, remove name=Proposed Road and the current access tags, and remove layer=1 from the non-bridge sections. 

Proposed bridges could or should be tagged using lifecycle tagging and verified from a permissible planning source. 

Please also provide the official source supporting the proposed alignment, name, lane count, and bridge locations.

Thank you!
rajdhani (2026-07-31 06:01:38+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186686886
felipeeugenio (2026-07-29 14:05:02+00:00): Hola. Puedes cuadrar las estructuras con la letra Q.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186561827
MappingMore (2026-07-30 11:29:49+00:00): Reverted in  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186638657
dmozzanica (2026-07-29 17:11:13+00:00): Thanks for reverting.

DM
nevw (2026-07-29 09:46:49+00:00): Hi, I have reverted this changeset that changed a landuse=residential block to amenity=public_bookcase.
You will need to add a new node to the location of the bookcase. Zoom in close so you don't add the node to another boundary.
Wildsharky (2026-07-31 07:45:47+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186683804
ToTo_Kwon (2026-07-31 08:26:41+00:00): 제가 올린 gpx 궤적 파일을 보시면 변경한 내용이 다른 사람이 오픈스트리트 맵을 이용하기 가장 좋은 환경으로 변경되었음을 알 수 있을 것입니다.

한양도성 코스는 현재 35회 완주 하였으므로 누구보다 세세하게 지도를 편집 할 수 있습니다.

매번 오픈스트리트 맵을 켜고 붉은 점선을 따라 이동하면서 편차가 심한 부분을 사진으로 찍어서 오차를 수정하고 있습니다.

혹시 편집 방법에 있어서 실수가 있을지 모르니 이런 부분은 수정해 주셨으면 대단히 감사하겠습니다.
mavl (2026-07-29 06:24:56+00:00): Здравствуйте. Подскажите, пожалуйста, почему вы удалили парковку?  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455677663/history  
  
И зачем вы удалили лес?  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151000330/history
iuvi (2026-07-29 09:25:48+00:00): там не лес а просто ряд деревьев, + поправил ровность пешеходной дорожки

Парковку удалил поскольку ее надо подровнять как и дороги вокруг домов, что сейчас и сделал в последнем изменении
mavl (2026-07-29 09:32:40+00:00): > там не лес а просто ряд деревьев, + поправил ровность пешеходной дорожки

Ряд деревьев может быть обозначен как natural=wood. Удалять объекты и добалять их снова не нужно.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Good_practice  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:natural%3Dwood  
  
> Парковку удалил поскольку ее надо подровнять как и дороги вокруг домов, что сейчас и сделал в последнем изменении  
  
Если парковку нужно изменить, то её нужно изменить. Удалять её не нужно.
iuvi (2026-07-30 09:29:49+00:00): если они просто в ряд то правильнее https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:natural=tree%20row?uselang=ru

если же несколько рядов тогда да