piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
philipcullen (2026-01-26 18:45:45+00:00): Hi Pascal,

There had been quite a bit of discussion about the licensing, but the prevailing view is that it is compatible, provided it had been correctly licensed as OGL in the first place. These have been some datasets which contain other IP, so can't be fully licensed as OGL, but these are identified on the dataset.

Personally I think there are three main benefits - the data that can be derived (such as partial addresses), and the ability to match to other datasets (UPRNs now being the government standard), and the ability to use the UPRN dataset to see new features that may be missing from OSM. The identifiers are persistent and well managed, which makes them very stable to add to OSM.

There had been some discussion on the OSM forum in three UK section about this, evolving around a an import, and no objections were raised to improving the data itself, just valid caution about getting it correct.

Phil
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-26 19:03:23+00:00): Thanks for the detailed explanation and for taking the time to respond, much appreciated.

Cheers,
Pascal
James_OWORNTE (2026-03-28 14:46:32+00:00): Thank you for your contribution! 
There are still more objects to map. I will reopen the task for other 
mappers to complete.
Once again, thank you for your participation!
James_OWORNTE (2026-03-30 07:56:30+00:00): Thank you for your contribution! The task was well mapped. I made some minor addition. Once again, thank you for your participation!
fortera_au (2026-01-26 03:33:32+00:00): Hi, these two nodes are still in the relation for the Glenelg Tram as stops, they should be removed and the new ones added.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177703507
GlobalMouser (2026-01-26 05:44:51+00:00): Fixed. Thanks.
Frans S (2026-04-01 11:54:00+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please square each rectangular building with the Q key while still selected.
Best regards and keep mapping
eggie (2026-01-26 07:34:19+00:00): Dag Victor,

De info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode.
MVG
eggie
ColbyTheWorldTraveler (2026-02-24 19:50:18+00:00): The name is correct. Thanks for adding it! I didn't think about doing so.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177703804
leo-xclnc (2026-01-27 12:12:46+00:00): Hi Derkoenig,

ich glaub kaum, dass dort eine tram geplant wird. Woher kommt denn diese info?
Die kochertalbahn führte nie durch Gaisbach durch, sondern durch das Tal vom künsbach.
Jayvelmar (2026-01-26 02:26:21+00:00): This bus route no longer services beyond Hannaford.
woodpeck_repair (2026-02-10 13:48:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 178361052 where the changeset comment is: revert unexplained 'f4map' modifications, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178130466
literan (2026-01-28 08:48:40+00:00): зачем от балды статус поставили (trunk)? откачу.
РенатС (2026-01-28 09:07:01+00:00): Да, сорри, я новичок)
Taya_S (2026-01-26 07:32:37+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177708439
Taya_S (2026-01-26 07:32:38+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177708439
NeisBot (2026-01-26 03:56:13+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your changesets and noticed that the cumulative count of your recent edits (4 changesets) shows that 316 of your last 319 changes were deletions. This is quite an unusual proportion, so I wanted to check with you.

Could you please confirm whether these deletions were intentional or if they may have occurred by mistake?

#DeletionsCheck #Cumulative
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?uid=23751855
Taya_S (2026-01-26 07:47:34+00:00): This is getting silly https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19663
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-26 07:50:25+00:00): Yep
Minagonow (2026-01-26 04:56:18+00:00): agree
trunks8333 (2026-02-10 09:28:04+00:00): context: note/5104158
tguen (2026-02-06 00:01:53+00:00): If bicycles arent allowed on Butler Creek Trail, you should remove the bicycle tag. If they are, you should change them back from footways to paths.
tguen (2026-03-06 06:05:29+00:00): reverted
022 (2026-01-26 05:49:38+00:00): apologies for large changeset
022 (2026-01-26 05:50:42+00:00): Source = government of Alberta Altalis under the open Data License - Alberta
thebeastmodo1 (2026-01-26 06:11:48+00:00): reverted due to vandalism.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177706893
thebeastmodo1 (2026-01-26 06:09:36+00:00): reverted due to vandalism.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177706860
NeisBot (2026-01-26 06:46:40+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13489073968 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Auto repair shop"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-02 07:01:55+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177833361
mueschel (2026-01-27 18:46:15+00:00): Reminder: Watch out for the correct spelling of tags. It's "building", not "biulding".
habi (2026-01-27 10:41:56+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177757123
tux67 (2026-01-26 08:26:56+00:00): Hi - Hotel und Restaurant waren bereits komplett eingetragen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/270335889
Die Glutenfrei Info wurde mit weniger werblichem Charakter übernommen - siehe Wiki Guideline zum description field:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description#No_advertising
Piz Pachific (2026-01-29 12:12:42+00:00): Hallo

Schön dass du bei OSM mithilfst. Leider waren deine Änderungen ziemlich destruktiv und habe es mit folgendem Changeset wieder richtiggestellt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177844566

Falls du fragen dazu hast, einfach melden.
Superadlen (2026-01-26 11:16:10+00:00): Merci
Mohamed_Taha (2026-01-27 14:59:16+00:00): You're welcome.
nevw (2026-01-26 22:06:36+00:00): Hi, multipolygons cannot have shared segments between the polygons.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.00183&lat=-27.48620&zoom=19
Simple polygons instead of a relation is ok or use a polygon around the outside and use building:part to map three parts.
Osm wiki has info on how multipolygon relations need to be made.
bundlers (2026-02-02 02:25:40+00:00): Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I've read through the OSM wiki article on 'relation:multipolygon' twice to learn more about multiplygons and haven't found anywhere suggesting not to use shared segments.

It does mention in the subheading 'Mapping style, best practice' that "sharing way segments between multipolygons (method B) offers a representational efficiency by avoiding redundant representations of overlapping ways."

Is there something I'm misunderstanding? Would love to learn more so I don't make bad contributions!
nevw (2026-02-02 04:07:14+00:00): ...comes down to this I guess:
Valid multipolygon conditions
Generally, the multipolygon relation can be used to build multipolygons in compliance with the OGC Simple Feature standard. Anything that is not a valid multipolygon according to this standard (e.g., polygons with intersecting rings) should also be considered an invalid multipolygon relation, with the notable exception of touching inner rings. 
...your has outer touching rings.
Wiki used to have better invalid examples of shared outer rings but I can find it now but wiki is becoming less useful with time.
bundlers (2026-02-02 05:15:53+00:00): Yes, I made sure there were no intersecting rings or touching inner rings. I can't find anything about touching outer rings on the following pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon/Algorithm
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:multipolygon
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Relation:multipolygon/validity
https://www.ogc.org/standards/sfs

Valid multipolygons appears to be a decades old debate with no clear consensus, anyway.

Please map the building according to best practice and I will study it and follow along accordingly in my future mapping.
nevw (2026-02-02 08:33:18+00:00): I don’t tend to do much building mapping but I would use building for outside perimeter and building building parts for the individual parts then 3d mappers can add their tags. building:part sections don’t render though so not many would map using that method - only the outside polygon tenders which would normally carry any name. Mutipolygons for buildings are best used when there are inners like courtyards. If you want more discussion, it is a good query to ask on our forum.
bundlers (2026-02-02 10:51:26+00:00): I gave your suggestion a go on a cafe I visited recently that already had a hodgepodge of buildings and parts and nodes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178000466
I used a building for the outside perimeter then parts for each section. Let me know if this is what you were thinking and I can do the same for the Thomas Dixon Centre.
nevw (2026-02-02 13:02:57+00:00): It looks good to me, but not sure if the outdoor seating area should be be part of the building. 
For big complex buildings with different shapes and heights the building:part method is best.
If you want  each part of the cafe to render you would instead need to map as 4 individual polygons (2 buildings, a roof and the outdoor area).
bundlers (2026-02-02 21:38:57+00:00): Yeah I was deciding whether to include the outdoor seating area. It's a raised deck attached to the building and was already traced by another mapper but untagged, so I decided to include it.

The Dixon building will be simpler, so I'll have a crack at it sometime soon.
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:27+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13494989169 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Toko Plafon PVC"
---
Misalnya, versi teks yang lebih netral dan faktual bisa jadi: "Toko Plafon PVC"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-04 06:37:36+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178079720
(No visible changes after review)
berndw (2026-01-26 08:04:57+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5143384
Tatfahren (2026-01-26 19:36:13+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1107805968/history war auch korrekt mit "informal=yes" als Trampelpfad gekennzeichnet. Auch ein Trampelpfad ist ein Pfad.
qugeb (2026-06-29 10:23:31+00:00): Hi @markus_klinger, du hast vor ca. 5 Monaten diesen Hydranten erfasst: node/13495090901. Der Hydrant hat einen unplausiblen Durchmesser (30000 mm oder 30 Meter), befindet sich in einem Gebäude und hat fire_hydrant:type = pond wobei type eigentlich die Bauform beschreibt: osm.wiki/DE:Key:fire_hydrant:type Kannst du unterstützen wie der Hydrant vor Ort genau aussieht? 
Siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5344242
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:30+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/840210098 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Self storage center"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Centro de almacenamiento"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-04 06:37:36+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178079721
(No visible changes after review)
HellMap (2026-01-26 14:54:48+00:00): Can you please clarify what "old play structures" means here? Do they not exist anymore? Many are still visible on aerial and street view. The only source you specified is the aerial. Given that you have not replied to earlier comments and your edits have not been correct in many cases, I will revert this edit until you can clarify about these individually and we can update from there.
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:34+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/1469105098 v5

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "self storage facility"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "instalación de almacenamiento propio"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-04 06:37:36+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177851569
Taya_S (2026-02-12 17:33:19+00:00): Hi bahar2000, do all these monuments actually exists? Do they actually have these names?
Zrop (2026-01-26 20:50:30+00:00): Hallo Der Troisdorfer,
warum hast Du hier wieder die Gebäude zu "building=yes" zurück geändert ?

Gruß
Zrop
wolfgang8 (2026-01-26 13:32:03+00:00): Die Adresse "Gedersdorf, Wienerstraße 50" war schon so richtig eingetragen.

"Loiserstraße 52" und "Loiserstraße 52a" gehören zur Ortschaft "Brunn im Felde".

https://bev.kolmann.at/map/#18/48.43890/15.70115
DerKaiserschmarren (2026-01-30 11:52:07+00:00): das ist zumindest derweil einmal korregiert. Den Rest mache ich erst nach einer baldigen Survey: siehe: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5148307
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:36+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/237746570 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "IT services office"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-04 06:37:37+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/177749466
YellowSoul (2026-07-14 08:44:39+00:00): Dies ist ein sog. baulicher Radweg ohne Benutzungspflicht, daher bicycle=designated. Siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
Knotte (2026-07-14 11:14:56+00:00): Nach Durchlesen dieses Threads (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/radverkehrsanlagen-kartieren-wann-setzt-man-bicycle-designated/96443/242) und Frage an die KI kann man festhalten:
Allgemein ist in der deutschen OSM-Community die übliche Auffassung:

bicycle=designated bedeutet, dass der Weg rechtlich für den Radverkehr bestimmt/gewidmet ist (typischerweise durch Verkehrszeichen oder eine andere eindeutige rechtliche Festlegung).
Eine rein optische Gestaltung (roter Belag, Fahrradsymbole aufgemalt, bauliche Anmutung eines Radwegs usw.) genügt vielen Mappern nicht automatisch für bicycle=designated, wenn keine rechtliche Widmung erkennbar ist.
Ist ein Weg lediglich als Radweg gestaltet, rechtlich aber nicht als solcher ausgewiesen, wird häufig eher mit den tatsächlichen Zugangsrechten getaggt (z. B. bicycle=yes) statt mit bicycle=designated.
Knotte (2026-07-14 11:21:04+00:00): Es wird wohl für immer darüber gestritten werden ob solche Wege designated sind oder nicht. Meine Erachtens gibt hier das Umfeld den Ausschlag. in der Straße herrscht fast kein Verkehr, der Radweg ist eher schmal und in einem vor allem für Rennräder "typisch deutschen" Zustand. Die Straße ist hier meiner Meinung nach auf für alle anderen Räder eindeutig vorzuziehen, wenn man auch noch die Gefahr des Doorings dazunimmt. Meine Hoffnung war, ohne das desginated die Routing-Algorithmen dazu zu bringen, Radtouren über die Straße zu leiten, tun sie aber wohl bereits dann nicht, wenn ein bicycle=yes auf dem Fußweg vorhanden ist.
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:55:02+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/940258471 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "self storage facility"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "instalación de almacenamiento propio"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-04 06:37:37+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178079723
(No visible changes after review)
mueschel (2026-02-01 15:41:36+00:00): Hi,
what does 'parking:right:mail = designated' mean? This tag isn't used in any other places. Is that about delivery vehicles or vehicles operated by the postal service?
Yourock17 (2026-02-02 01:37:08+00:00): These sections of road are "Mail Zones" and can only be used by postal services - not quite "loading_only". I went searching the wiki and couldn't find a standard - if there's one that would make me a happy chap.

https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s186.html
mueschel (2026-02-05 18:46:44+00:00): Thanks for the explanation! We don't have a defined "mail" tag, so I suggest to use conditional syntax here:

parking:right:access = no
parking:right:access:conditional = designated @ "mail service"
Taya_S (2026-01-29 08:32:53+00:00): Reverted boundary edit

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177836126
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-27 00:22:14+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.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13473031066

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
literan (2026-01-26 19:19:40+00:00): что это вообще такое? вендинговый аппарат с водой? тегов от балды наставлена целая куча
djsa (2026-01-26 10:08:26+00:00): You have added foot=no to a highway=pedestrian, which is contradictory. If you want to mark these service roads as private, making them access=private is enough, the foot=* tag is not used to indicate whether it is private or not.
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:41+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/10994169591 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Self storage facility"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Instalación de almacenamiento propio"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-04 06:37:38+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178079725
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/1470827360 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Land for sale"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:45+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/1470828775 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Land for sale"

#MapWithoutSpam
Taya_S (2026-01-31 17:33:53+00:00): Reverted nonsense SEO edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177935143
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:47+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/1470829672 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Land for sale"

#MapWithoutSpam
mueschel (2026-01-27 18:48:11+00:00): Please check the edits, you added many strange tags like  

group = Religione
status = missing
subcategory = Chiesa
subgroup = Luoghi di Culto
giopera (2026-01-27 19:19:04+00:00): Thank you, but as you can see I've already removed them
giopera (2026-01-27 19:21:13+00:00): Ops, sorry, I had reverted the changes because of my error but I'll filter then and change them back now
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:34:48+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/1470830225 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Land for sale"

#MapWithoutSpam