piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MxxCon (2024-02-23 17:18:53+00:00): Vandalism reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147827500
MxxCon (2024-02-23 17:18:54+00:00): Vandalism reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147827500
Glassman (2024-02-17 23:41:25+00:00): Your contributions looks good. A couple of suggestions. The ponds are probably basins. They are tagged as landuse=basin + basin=detention or basin=retention.

Also - when you add a culvert, be sure to include a layer=-1. That tells the renderer that the road is over the culvert.
Glassman (2024-02-17 23:36:58+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q" - they will look nicer.
Jimmyisawkward (2024-02-18 00:26:37+00:00): Thanks!!
cielak42 (2024-02-17 02:17:03+00:00): Ale przecież ta pętla jest sprawna, w dobrym stanie, i czasami nawet używana w razie gdy coś blokuje przejazd do Nowego Dworu?
maro21 (2024-02-17 15:41:30+00:00): https://osm.org/changeset/146823050
johnny_1982 (2024-04-12 14:45:35+00:00): Hallo sundew,
ich glaube dieser Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11632496671 ist eine Doppelung dieses älteren nodes  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10817093913
Ich glaube an dieser Stelle stand nur ein einzelnes Telefon.
sundew (2024-04-12 21:37:03+00:00): Hallo Johnny,

ja du hast Recht. Dort stand neulich nur eine einzige Telefonleiche. Ja mein Fehler, ich hatte mich schon gewundert, warum ich bei meiner ersten Tour durch Stendal zwar das Telefon dort geprüft hatte, aber dann bei der Vorbereitungsfilterung (check_date) für die zweite Tour zwei Wochen später es immer noch ungecheckt vorfand, also nochmals dran vorbei fahren musste. Ich glaube mich zu erinnern, es gab wohl damals einen Uploadkonflikt in JOSM, weil der Node an der zu dem Zeitpunkt ungeladenen Wiese dran hing.
Ich lösche den versehentlich doppelt eingetragenen Node nun.

LG & frohes Mappen!
Xvtn (2024-03-05 16:01:01+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here, and in some of your other changesets. Things look great overall, but looking at this one it seems like some of these "sidewalks" are actually just highway shoulder. Rapid can make it really easy to just blindly add stuff without verifying, but we should be double-checking each change.
Let me know if you disagree or have any questions. Thanks for your contributions!
Xvtn (2024-03-19 16:14:14+00:00): I went ahead and fixed the issues here.
Kevlarpeters (2024-03-19 16:36:07+00:00): It is a sidewalk. I went to Google Streetview and there was a barrier between the highway and the sidewalk.
Xvtn (2024-03-19 17:00:09+00:00): The only sidewalk I removed is the one along Red Mountain Freeway (the one going east-west). Is that the one you're referring to?
The other ones, such as along McClintock Drive, I agree with you that they're real, and I didn't remove them.
Xvtn (2024-03-19 17:04:16+00:00): Just a side note that the license for Google Street View and Maps isn't compatible with OSM, so we shouldn't use them for improving OSM. Fortunately there are alternatives that are appropriately licensed such as Mapillary and Bing Streetside. You can enable these in iD, they're under "map data" -> "Photo Overlays".

I can't link to it in iD (openstreetmap editor) but here's the relevant Bing image for the sidewalk I deleted: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=33.435803%7E-111.909829&lvl=17.0&v=2&sV=1&pi=1.3&style=x&dir=89.1
Kevlarpeters (2024-03-19 17:08:56+00:00): I do remember this set because I remember specifically putting the sidewalk under the bridge. That's strange that I put one on that shoulder. I don't remember doing that. Thanks for taking it out.
Xvtn (2024-03-19 17:11:44+00:00): Gotcha, cool. I added a bridge tag to the McClintock ones to match the road, and merged and extended some nearby.
Xvtn (2024-03-05 15:57:53+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! Thanks for your contributions!
habi (2024-02-29 07:42:10+00:00): Ciao MappSurfer
Ich bin gerade wegen dem Flicken von `fixme`-Tags rund um Bern über https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1225285845/ und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1225285773 gestolpert.

Wie schon mehrmals erwänht, gehören solche Bahnstecken *nicht* in OpenStreetMap.

Ich respektiere aber deine Arbeit an diesen alten Bahnstrecken.
Anstatt dass ich diese einfach lösche, wollte ich dich bitten, diese aus OpenStreetMap in https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ zu verfrachten, dort sind diese gut aufgehoben.
Ich hab' mich da nicht richtig eingelesen, aber das sollte mit JOSM relativ einfach möglich sein.
Kannst du das nächstens Mal angehen?

Gruss,
habi
MappSurfer (2024-03-08 21:22:11+00:00): Hallo habi

Bereits etwas länger hatte ich das sowieso schon vor. Ich finde es aber interessant, dass du die gleichen Ways erwähnst, wie bereits vor etwa einem halben Jahr. Ein Teil dieser Ways habe ich in diesem Änderungssatz übrigens gelöscht.

Liebe Grüsse
MappSurfer
TheDutchMan13 (2024-02-17 00:53:06+00:00): Added post code to addresses.
Xvtn (2024-03-05 15:56:35+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! I see that you tagged this outer area as a giant building, but it looks like you fixed it already.

Thanks for your contributions!
Allison P (2024-02-17 03:25:56+00:00): The addresses you deleted were the new addresses. You also should have repurposed the construction as residential landuse instead of deleting it. It had address and name information on it. The building polygon is not very well aligned either. I have reverted this changeset.
trigpoint (2024-02-17 17:21:57+00:00): Why unclassified, these are private and very restricted? Service is perfect, its not as through you can drive around the Roundabout and come back out.
Falsernet (2024-02-23 02:45:13+00:00): Just figured it made sense for the layout of the road and the way it distributes traffic to smaller service roads, plus the existing turning lane being unclassified already
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-03 20:13:11+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5077809 - are there any visible remains at section where motorway is now located?
RussNelson (2025-12-03 20:26:38+00:00): It's more visible when the leaves are down than you can see on the Google Streetview or if you drive past it.
RussNelson (2025-12-03 20:29:19+00:00): Some editors enjoy chopping up abandoned railroads when they can't see tracks crossing a road. I don't see the point, since abandoned rails only get rendered on specialty maps where you want to see these things.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-03 20:33:40+00:00): rendering is not really relevant here

the question is rather is that section still having visible remains or not
RussNelson (2025-12-03 20:36:21+00:00): If a railbed is visible to the north and south of a road, I'm not going to mark it razed just where it crosses the road. There is no value to any map user.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-03 20:40:22+00:00): value or not does not really matter, what matter is data accuracy
RussNelson (2025-12-03 20:53:03+00:00): Data accuracy? Can we talk about coastlines, then? Or road alignment on a foot by foot basis?

There's accuracy and there's penny-ante changes. What matters is value to the end-user, and that can only be judged by the end-user. Of how much value is it to anyone to delete something whose absence can be inferred from its remains?

That's why this is a controversial topic, best resolved by not deleting something that a mapper felt was important to add.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-03 21:04:50+00:00): "What matters is value to the end-user" not really, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mistagging_for_the_renderer

"that can only be judged by the end-user" maybe, but that is irrelevant when deciding on what is the correct thing to map
RussNelson (2025-12-03 21:12:04+00:00): I didn't say that what matters is how the data is rendered. I said that what matters is that the data CAN be rendered. If it's been deleted, many possible renderings are made impossible. If it's tagged accurately with "razed", then it could be rendered as razed.

Deleting something that someone thought valuable doesn't improve the map. Tagging it accurately does.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-03 21:42:06+00:00): > Deleting something that someone thought valuable doesn't improve the map. 

in many cases it does, copyright violation cleanup being a clear case

DWG routinely reverts edits that someone considered useful
RussNelson (2025-12-04 01:16:01+00:00): True, but that is beside the point.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-02-17 04:40:14+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202059173

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
WieKo68 (2024-02-17 20:16:43+00:00): poprawione
i2004 (2024-02-18 14:46:17+00:00): te hice el ramal del 98 villa españa x franco
i2004 (2024-02-18 16:03:18+00:00): y tambien te hice de vialla españa a once x calchaqui y x franco
cbeddow (2024-02-22 03:51:22+00:00): Nice work! Check out also this project to map sidewalks in Little Havana: https://tasks.mapwith.ai/projects/164/tasks
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147556610
user_21029617 (2024-02-17 13:53:33+00:00): This area called Dasht Shuli
Allison P (2024-02-17 05:20:20+00:00): This took two hours. Say what you want about cookie-cutter suburbs but it's much easier to map the sidewalks
rskedgell (2025-03-06 13:08:08+00:00): Please don't map for the renderer by adding pretend dual carriageway segments where no physical lane separation exists.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are *not* to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines, hatched areas, channelized turn lanes, two-way turn lanes, by flush medians, or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."
Ky_AT (2025-03-12 16:20:54+00:00): Hi rskedgell, On review from your feedback I realized that the dual carriageways should not have been extended and better understand the criteria for dual carrigways in OSM. So thank you for making the corrections.
rskedgell (2025-03-12 18:36:34+00:00): No problem, thanks for getting back to me.
sirorezka (2024-02-18 18:23:01+00:00): Здравсвуйте, ваше здание попало на забор. Поправьте, пожалуйста.
denis-ch26 (2024-02-18 19:02:02+00:00): Здравствуете. Поправил полигон здания- забор.
sirorezka (2024-02-18 18:24:26+00:00): Здравствуйте, вы почему-то отрисовали полигон здания на площадке с теннисными кортами. Итоговый результат выглядит плохо. Что вы хотели изменить своими изменениями.
denis-ch26 (2024-02-18 19:18:00+00:00): Здравствуйте. Отрисовку полигона здания делал по снимку  "Всемирные снимки Esri". Вероятно с устаревшей информацией.
denis-ch26 (2024-02-18 19:19:34+00:00): Убрал.
sirorezka (2024-02-18 20:22:41+00:00): Понял вас, спасибо за уточнение
literan (2024-02-23 11:49:07+00:00): не надо рисовать снесенные здания
denis-ch26 (2024-02-23 12:13:28+00:00): убрал
literan (2024-02-23 11:48:27+00:00): это контур котлована, а не здания
denis-ch26 (2024-02-23 12:12:23+00:00): убрал
literan (2024-02-23 11:47:25+00:00): откат, это давно снесено
denis-ch26 (2024-02-23 12:11:21+00:00): убрал
VlIvYur (2024-05-22 13:28:42+00:00): Hello
Is this parking on the south-west end of Pennsylvanian Apartments closed or something? Someone drew the roads you removed back
user_18306654 (2024-05-22 13:31:29+00:00): Yeah, I accidentally deleted these and never noticed, thanks for correcting
Davileci (2024-02-18 11:03:40+00:00): If the tag 'golf=water_hazard' can be usefully combined with 'natural=water' according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q6342, why should not the tag 'golf=bunker' be usefully combined with 'natural=sand'?
geozeisig (2024-02-18 12:29:20+00:00): To use natural=sand on a bunker is  superfluous and also tagging for the renderer. See also 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Features within a golf course
Road–Runner (2024-03-05 02:02:52+00:00): Hallo. Hier (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1251507737) hast Du glaub ich vergessen anzugeben um welchen place_of_worship es sich dabei handelt: Kirche, Bildstock, Kapelle?
Paschberg (2024-03-05 06:34:03+00:00): Habe ich ehrlich gesagt bisher kaum gemacht...ich glaube wir haben schon einmal darüber gesprochen...und ich hab es wieder vergessen, sorry - meinst du syntax building=chapel? wir das dann auch im normalen OSM oder Osmand anders angezeigt?
In diesem Fall gibt es dort übrigens zwei ineinader integrierte Gebäude: Oben (Hanglage) Kapelle unten im Sockel Bildstock
Road–Runner (2024-03-05 14:22:03+00:00): Ja auf OSM wird es dann als (etwas dünkleres) Gebäude gerendert (sichtbar auch an den Kirchen). place_of_worship gibt eigentlich nur an dass es sich um eine Andachtsstätte handelt wo Messen oder Gebete stattfinden, also beschreibt eher die Funktion als POI.
Genau building=chapel/building=wayside_shrine beschreibt dann dass Gebäude konkret. 

Ich finde diese Syntax auch etwas seltsam und ganz durchgeblickt habe ich leider auch noch nicht, warum ein Attribut das sakrale Gebäude beschreibt und das andere die Funktion? Und warum Kapellen/Kirchen alleine nicht gerendert werden, sondern erst bei place_of_worship das Kreuz auf OSM sichtbar wird?
Paschberg (2024-03-06 21:18:53+00:00): Denkmögliche Unterscheidung aus meiner Sicht:
Wenn in der geschaffenen Nische zwei Personen Platz haben (frei nach dem Liedtext:" Wenn zwei oder drei in meinem Namen versammelt sind..." building=chapel.
Wenn aber diese Nische vergittert ist als weiters Attribut: historic=wayside_shrine. Letzters überschreibt dann im Kartensymbol die Kapelle
building=wayside_shrine (wäre bisher nicht auf die Idee gekommen, dass das sowohl bei historic alsauch building möglich ist) würde die Erscheinung des theoretisch betretbaren Gebäudes verschleiern.
Die Osm-Wiki scheint das ähnlich zu definieren: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:historic%3Dwayside_shrine
Die Englische Wiki noch etwas barocker:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dplace_of_worship
Paschberg (2024-03-06 21:23:06+00:00): P.S. Was ich mir in OSM als Kartensymbol wünschen würde wäre nahc dem Vorbild der ÖK-Karten das Bildbaumsymbol. Also die eingabe einen Wayside_shrine, der an einem Baum montiert ist. Das gibt es bei uns ja nicht gerade selten.
Road–Runner (2024-03-14 12:30:20+00:00): Okay, danke.
tonyf1 (2024-03-03 13:07:53+00:00): Hi Ben, I suspect that this track  1251509544, v1 isn't meant to be there. Is it an unauthorised track created by the public, a path left by a bulldozer just passing through or what? Thanks, Tony, Friends of LysterfieldPark.
benpmorgan (2024-03-03 23:40:06+00:00): Hi Tony - it was a clear track, cleared and mowed, and a metre or two wide I think - so pretty sure it's not an unauthorised track created by public, at the least. 
If I remember rightly, I also observed it a few weeks before I went along it, so it seemed like it was being maintained (whether that maintenance continues or not, I guess is not clear).
tonyf1 (2024-03-04 22:12:07+00:00): Thanks Ben, I have referred it to the ranger
tonyf1 (2024-03-05 23:50:22+00:00): Thanks Ben, this track was put in by Forest Fire Management for a controlled  burn. I do not know their long term plans. It is correctly tagged for the moment.
benpmorgan (2024-03-06 00:12:58+00:00): Hi Tony, thanks for looking into that, good to know.
vasony (2024-03-02 10:51:36+00:00): Szia!

Egy csomó mindent letöröltél, erre nincs utalás a megjegyzésben amit kitöltöttél. Az "épület" nem túl bőbeszédű.
Ez szándékok volt?

Tamás
Csaba777 (2024-03-02 11:50:18+00:00): Szia Tamás,
Nem emlékszem pontosan, de megszűnt üzleteket, kocsmát és közkutakat töröltem le. Hozzáadtam ha jól emlékszem néhány azóta épült lakóházat. Nyilván nem fejtettem ki, hogy milyen épület. Gondoltam valamelyest egyértelmű. Pl a megszűnt kocsma helyén az épület még megvan. Ha van még kérdésed, szívesen válaszolok. Elég sokat járok azon a környéken. Jól ismerem a falut.
Üdv: Csaba
vasony (2024-03-02 13:24:22+00:00): Szia!

Igen a kutakra gondoltam, illetve a elsősorban most a Kertivill érdekelne.

Egyébként ha az üzlet nemrégiben szűnt meg, akkor törlés helyett disused:shop-ot szoktunk használni  shop címke átírásával. 
Hasonló a helyzet a lebontott épületekkel, ott ha még látható a műholdképeken akkor a building egy demolished: előtagot kap.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Tamás
Csaba777 (2024-03-03 08:46:58+00:00): Kedves Tamás, a Kertivill egy helyi facebook csopotbejegyzésben jelentette be megszűnését. A kutak nagy részét pedig az Önkormányzat döntése alapján szerelték le.
Csaba
Csaba777 (2024-03-03 08:54:10+00:00): https://www.tinnye.hu/sites/default/files/eloterjesztes_osszesitett_szeptember_javitott.pdf
Csaba777 (2024-03-03 08:56:04+00:00): Pontosítom majd a térképen a kutak számát.
Gaurav Parajuli (2024-02-19 04:31:59+00:00): Hi @Shandhivya, The modification is good and the outline perfectly matches with the building footprint. Thank you for mapping.
Keep Mapping.
Shandhivya (2024-02-25 07:52:01+00:00): Thank you for your positive feedback! I'm glad to hear that the modification meets your expectations and that the outline aligns perfectly with the building footprint.
stevea (2024-02-17 22:08:13+00:00): I'd ask that you remove the leisure=nature_reserve tag from both of these closed polygons, as they are more distinctly "the remaining tagging" which would be correct if "leisure" tagging were removed.  There isn't anything leisure about this polygon (in the sense that OSM defines leisure=*).  Thanks in advance for seeing this and removing that tag.
Black_Diamond (2024-02-18 05:57:39+00:00): Can you clarify your concern? The iD editor shows that tag as a nature reserve, which it is, but these areas under fairly strict access conditions. So they're not open. They're closed areas.

It's my understanding that they are a part of the Midpeninsula regional open space authority and/or the Open Space Trust. They're kind of 2 sides of the same coin. Their maps show these areas as closed areas (not private areas).

To quote the OSM documentation on it (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=nature_reserve), it says, "Such areas are reserved and managed for conservation and to provide special opportunities for study or research. Nature reserves may be designated by government institutions in some countries, or by private landowners, such as charities and research institutions." These areas meet those conditions according to the documentation.

Am I misunderstanding your request?
Black_Diamond (2024-02-18 05:58:54+00:00): Also that Wiki page also states that "landuse=natural_reserve" is strongly discouraged.
stevea (2024-02-18 08:01:52+00:00): Nobody said anything about landuse=natural_reserve which is a strongly discouraged tag.  I am asserting that leisure=nature_reserve is for areas where "people go for leisure, to the nature reserve" (where they might hike, if they stick to the trail, or stay at the wildlife viewing area, with their binoculars, if they don't want to venture too far into the reserve.

While "special opportunities" do exist for people to visit the actual-wilderness or near-wilderness areas (like it appears this is) you must get a special permit, someone doing specific academic research can be seen to get clear to do botanical or biological or whatever studies, but the general public (who "leisure"), no.

leisure=nature_reserve is an older tag and newer tags (in the protect_class numbered or protection_class plain-English vein) are preferred, as they are much less ambiguous.  I really do think this might be a leisure=nature_reserve for some purposes, but both of us don't seem to know that (yet).

Try a site visit and see how difficult that is.  That should tell you if this is a (casual) "leisure" area.  I think the tagging is otherwise correct without this tag.
Black_Diamond (2024-02-18 21:24:03+00:00): Actually the websites for these closed areas are explicit on how to treat these areas. I tried to put the following in the description, but maybe I missed one of the areas.
--------
This is a closed area. Entering a closed area is punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor according to https://www.openspace.org/trail-use-regulations.
--------
It sounds like what you're really saying is that the the protect_class and boundary=protected_area are the important and sufficient values, and that leisure=nature_reserve shouldn't be used because they're marked as closed areas on the Open Space District website. From what I saw, that's insufficient to classify what the area is supposed to be used for, and that the access=no/private adequately classifies who can access such areas.

With that being said, I think there may have been some confusion. One of the areas that I touched is managed by the Open Space Authority of Santa Clara Valley and not the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. I'd like to make sure that we're talking about the same areas and aligning with what we're reading from the websites. Can you point at which areas of concern that you want modified?
stevea (2024-02-18 21:33:53+00:00): I saw that you added that, and thank you, it is relevant and does clarify that these are closed areas.  That's where I have the disconnect:  a closed area really isn't a "leisure" anything, which is why the leisure=nature_reserve tag seems inaccurate to me.  When I use that tag, it implies that there is public access (though limited to staying on trails and/or the "wildlife viewing area" which is often fenced, has interpretive signage and suggests binoculars).

These (closed) areas really are not that.  The other tags, withOUT leisure=nature_reserve, are sufficient to express these.  Although the protect_class=5 that causes rendering in Carto is often "over-applied" (and not strictly an IUCN denotation).

I've been active for almost 15 years in trying to improve the tagging on these in OSM, and it's been a struggle, with a lot of misunderstanding of existing tagging, and more difficult, tagging which evolves.  For example, Brian Sperlongano (Zelonewolf) and Kevin Kenny (ke9tv) and I have been working to reduce the protect_class numbering (which is a mess) and introduce "plain English tagging" with protection_class.  I realize it can be difficult to follow our wikis, newer proposals, the "drift" in semantics over time as tagging conventions change and evolve, but please take a look at as much wiki as you can on these topics:  it's complex, but it does sink in after seeing the historical trajectories OSM has taken in the last decade or so.

There is a leisure=nature_reserve in Santa Cruz (Pogonip Open Space Reserve) which I believe is accurately tagged (that), especially as it is an "open" area, not closed to the public.  These (MROSD, others around the Bay Area) which have closed areas shouldn't have leisure=nature_reserve applied.  Thanks, I'm happy to further dialog, offer perspective and answer any questions, although I certainly don't know everything!
stevea (2024-02-18 22:25:51+00:00): Let's stick to this single issue / place for now.  When you ask "where else" or "which others" my answer is "all of them" (if that applies).  But, one at a time.  There are also "front-country/back-country" aspects to this where you start drawing into the map what you do know, even a rough sketch around a picnic area or a directional infosign could suffice.
Black_Diamond (2024-02-19 00:29:05+00:00): Let me rephrase. The only area in this changeset that added leisure=nature_reserve was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/885956549

All of the rest was a splitting of a multipolygon, which was already tagged as leisure=nature_reserve. You can confirm it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4220197/history

Are you only asking for Mount Chual Preserve to be reverted? I split off Rancho de Guadalupe and Cathedral Oaks because they are separate from the unnamed areas.