piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
rskedgell (2026-03-10 13:03:08+00:00): Access tags in OSM should reflect the legal position, not a subjective opinion about whether it is undrivable.

Also, intentionally disconnecting highways in order to break routing for one transport mode is bad enough, but that breaks routing for *all* transport modes.

That said, the access tagging on Orestan Lane and Dirtham Road looks highly dubious to me - access=yes would probably only be correct if these are BOATs (byways open to all traffic). Are these signed as public rights of way at all, and if so, what type?
rskedgell (2026-03-10 13:06:52+00:00): Track reconnected in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179638642
iandees (2026-03-10 00:16:38+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
あじさか (2026-03-10 00:20:44+00:00): Existing roads and buildings were already aligned with GSI imagery.

Your edits moved them several meters to match Bing imagery, which appears to be offset in this area.
This breaks the alignment with existing map data.

Please verify imagery offsets before moving existing features.

If these edits are not corrected, I will revert them to maintain data quality.
あじさか (2026-03-10 14:17:36+00:00): I have partially reverted some geometry changes in this changeset because existing mapped features were moved to match unaligned Bing imagery.

Revert:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179641208
postown (2026-03-12 19:45:38+00:00): 大師橋駅前については、2026年1月17日より、駅南側の新たな交通広場内に移設されました。そのため、貴殿の変更については差し戻しました。
以上
juminet (2026-03-11 07:22:56+00:00): Bonjour et bravo pour ces ajouts, la commune d'Ottignies est une des moins complètes en termes d'adresses et de batiments dans OSM.  

N'hésitez pas à aussi ajouter les numéros de maisons et les noms de rues. Les numéros de maisons sont visibles sur le fond de plan du SPW PICC. 

Happy mapping, 
juminet
dominusbelgia (2026-03-24 18:27:58+00:00): Merci beaucoup ! Et c'est une bonne idée en effet
Wildsharky (2026-03-11 12:17:02+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179624555
MappingMore (2026-03-15 01:37:54+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179880999
iandees (2026-03-10 00:17:52+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
iandees (2026-03-10 00:42:15+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Bolbuyk (2026-03-10 01:05:43+00:00): Noordoostelijke helft van pad is gewoon toegankelijk. Zuidwestelijke helft niet. Dit krijg ik niet goed qua commentaar.
Warin61 (2026-03-19 23:54:51+00:00): HI
The roles in relation 20304766 are incorrect.. 

The outside has been given the role 'inner' and the inside has been given the role 'outer'. 
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=178.16222&lat=-38.47227&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
synthfi (2026-03-10 00:40:18+00:00): also, updated relations in 64 bus route from empty to platform
Wildsharky (2026-03-11 12:25:44+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179672354
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-10 07:29:36+00:00): Hello,

The name tag was changed to "مصنع او شركه بمرتب ثابت أفضل بكثير", which translates roughly to “A factory or company with a fixed salary is much better.”

This looks like a comment rather than the actual name of a place. In OpenStreetMap, the name tag should only contain the real name of the mapped feature. Could you please check this change?
Taya_S (2026-03-10 11:44:46+00:00): Reverted low quality OsmAnd edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179634384
Bolbuyk (2026-03-10 01:07:40+00:00): Poging tot verduidelijking, niet helemaal gelukt.
MappingMore (2026-03-15 01:27:34+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179880867
Taya_S (2026-03-10 11:44:47+00:00): Reverted low quality OsmAnd edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179634384
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-10 07:32:34+00:00): Hi Hello,

same again, the name tag was changed.

This looks like a comment rather than the actual name of a place. 

Could you please check this change?
MappingMore (2026-03-15 04:12:00+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179882734
MappingMore (2026-03-15 01:08:21+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179880659
Taya_S (2026-03-10 11:44:48+00:00): Reverted low quality OsmAnd edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179634384
MappingMore (2026-03-11 11:39:19+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179693246
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-10 07:35:06+00:00): Hello,

The name "استاذ الطيارين/ صلاح رفعت" looks like a personal name or title rather than the name of a village. 

Could you please check if this is the correct village name?
Taya_S (2026-03-10 11:57:46+00:00): Please see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19941
フーヴァー　リー (2026-03-10 11:26:11+00:00): 欢迎你来玩
MappingMore (2026-03-10 05:25:18+00:00): Revert of 179541952
hoserab (2026-03-10 18:15:17+00:00): Is this actually the case? All the aerial imagery still shows the path is there, and the development permit drawings for the new house on Baroc Road (https://dmap.calgary.ca/?p=DP2024-07973) still very clearly show the path is outside the houses' property lines. Triple-checking this against the Alberta Spatial Information System, it confirms the path between 5611 and 5607 Buckboard Road is a public right-of-way, while the space between 5704 and 5628 Baroc Road is a separate property.
Silverbrew (2026-03-10 21:48:25+00:00): Due to construction equipment I was unable to see this path when I walked by and assumed it was gone. However, I was doubting myself after making the changes and went by the site again today. The path, bollard, and gate still exist. Also, the path should be indicated as extending to Buckboard RD NW. I will try to revert the changes as a learning experience. I will reach out if I need help. Thanks hoserab.
crushtheserpent (2026-03-10 05:13:41+00:00): Not Jordan Downs; Jordan Downs is in Watts & I edited there a week ago.
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:31:34+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179678075
Supaplex (2026-03-10 04:19:20+00:00): 戶政那邊匯入就各樓層分開，iD與JOSM的檢查工具沒有納入addr:floor的，就順應台灣的資料來源狀況
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179613045
DOTMY (2026-03-10 05:41:25+00:00): 好知道了 下次我就不碰地址了 給會操作匯入資料的人來用就好了 抱歉
tyfi (2026-03-10 04:03:14+00:00): In this changeset I made what I think is a reasonable assumption that the camera is strapped to a power pole. I took a look at Bing StreetSide imagery, and it seems like an ok spot for ALPR placement.

It could totally be on a dedicated post, though, so we're waiting on more info from ground survey.
NeisBot (2026-03-10 04:10:28+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/13632953927 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-18 05:33:15+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/179632882
crushtheserpent (2026-03-10 04:13:01+00:00): I couldn't find any record of a road named South Van Ness Place around 54th Street. Both the county assessor property search website & L.A. city ZIMAS say properties north of 54th have addresses on Arlington Avenue & properties south of 54th have addresses on South Van Ness Avenue. Street signs in the area support the extent of the roads & the correct suffix of South Van Ness is avenue, not place.
MassCartog (2026-03-10 13:00:33+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. Make sure to not removed roads/tracks that exist on the ground. It clear the road you removed here exist, and by removing it you also cut off another road from the existing road network. If the feature type/tags are wrong please update it rather than removing the whole feature.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
iandees (2026-03-10 04:33:41+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Higashimado (2026-03-17 09:06:10+00:00): Your edits #179614228 and #179614816 have been reverted. Please make sure that you're making edits are based on actual ground features.
NeisBot (2026-03-10 04:55:04+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1356310766 v4 | 3 crossings
https://osm.org/way/618848409 v1 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/11059007692 v2
https://osm.org/node/5849359046 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179615294
iandees (2026-03-10 05:03:03+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Norbert Dichter (2026-03-11 17:46:46+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179615771
007Transformer (2026-03-10 08:44:08+00:00):  Reverted in changeset id: 179597371
soliMM (2026-03-10 08:54:07+00:00): Hi 007Transformer, what exactly did you mean with this comment? Changeset ID you provided is pointing out to the changeset which I have already reverted.
007Transformer (2026-03-12 12:11:16+00:00): Hi soliMM,

Greetings of the day!

A community mapper with user ID “GANNAALI” had incorrectly tagged the relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4103404 as landuse=residential for an administrative boundary in changeset 179597371. You corrected this based on your local knowledge, and there is nothing wrong in your edits. I really appreciate your efforts in open community mapping. I am currently reviewing similar cases to fix them according to reality. This particular changeset (179597371) was also on my review list. While checking it, I noticed that the issue had already been resolved in the database through your correction in changeset 179616489. Thank you for making that correction. In my comment, I intended to write “Revert of 179597371” so that the changeset would not appear again in my review list, as it was related to the earlier incorrect edit. However, by mistake I wrote “Reverted in changeset id: 179597371.” This comment was only meant for my internal tracking purposes.
I apologize for the confusion. I will make sure to be more careful with comments in the future.
Thank you again for your contribution to the community mapping effort.”
007Transformer (2026-03-12 12:13:49+00:00): Revert of 179597371
borovac (2026-03-12 12:43:46+00:00): Hi  007Transforme,

If this is intended for internal tracking purposes, it may be worth reconsidering the workflow. This approach can be misleading and may lead to confusion. Internal tracking is typically handled through personal spreadsheets rather than comments that imply changes were made when they were not.

All best Milan
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:39:45+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 179692868
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:30:48+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179677378
NeisBot (2026-03-10 05:49:35+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 32 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/966356195 v4 | 14 crossings
https://osm.org/way/334125971 v6 | 10 crossings
https://osm.org/way/335375093 v3 | 8 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2613617291 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179617501
NeisRevert (2026-03-10 07:07:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179621448
where the comment is: "Revert of unintended geometry change"
MappingMore (2026-03-15 03:46:01+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179882365
iandees (2026-03-10 13:37:00+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Norbert Dichter (2026-03-11 17:46:23+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179617628
Wildsharky (2026-03-10 05:53:23+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179535162
Chawagorn Toomma (2026-03-16 12:01:18+00:00): Why did you reverted my changeset? It was already corrected.
鮑榮泉(羅傑寶) (2026-03-11 13:17:49+00:00): 幹打錯字了再打一次
osmviborg (2026-03-10 07:09:49+00:00): Her har du hegnet et meget stort område ind som have, det er ikke helt efter wiki'en. En have indbefatter ikke bygningsmasse mm. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=garden
Taya_S (2026-03-17 08:37:10+00:00): This import has been reverted in the following changesets: 179990924,179990920,179990917,179990916,179990913,179990909,179990908

Please see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19969
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 06:05:18+00:00): Revert of 179555864
PrakharSharma (2026-03-10 06:26:37+00:00): the comments might not have been very clear but it was about the gate 1, gate 2 is open for student entry. I am from this area only and loved to contribute
Firefishy (2026-03-10 13:13:01+00:00): Likely needs an access=no tag.
Sébastien Pi (2026-05-03 17:07:28+00:00): Bonjour,

Ça semble surtout racheté par Delaize : https://hornu.shoppingcora.be/fr/boutiques/delhaize
NeisBot (2026-03-10 06:58:38+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/13633144275 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Insurance agency"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisAgent (2026-03-10 15:31:39+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google Maps or another Google mapping service as a data source.

Please note that using Google Maps, Google Street View, or similar Google services as a mapping source is not allowed in OpenStreetMap due to license restrictions.

More information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

If the data in this changeset was derived from Google Maps or another incompatible source, the edits may need to be reverted.

If this is a misunderstanding and the data was collected from permitted sources (e.g. local survey, Bing imagery, local knowledge, etc.), please clarify in a reply.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-17 07:29:59+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags and explicit source=* of Google Maps, which is not allowed by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184212632

https://osm.org/changeset/184212632
MappingMore (2026-03-15 04:34:52+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179882985
rskedgell (2026-03-10 14:59:40+00:00): Thanks for realigning this road.

I've changed it to highway=residential, split the landuse and traced the houses in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179643405

The highway has a Designated Street Name USRN, but there isn't (yet?) a name in OS Open Names or OS Open Roads. I was wondering if one is visible in TomTom's proprietary street side imagery?
Tinetto (2026-03-12 05:56:36+00:00): Hi rskedgell,
I checked our internal imagery resources and there is coverage from June 2022, a sign with the text “Greenview Grove” visible at the corner. Hope it is helpful for you on validating the name.
All the best.
rskedgell (2026-03-12 09:17:33+00:00): Many thanks - I've added it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179744455
synthfi (2026-03-10 07:21:31+00:00): made small fixes to the 64
uftyv (2026-03-10 07:31:11+00:00): Hi there,

You should use the square tool by pressing "Q" on your keyboard

-uftyv
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179622126
uftyv (2026-03-10 07:31:47+00:00): Hi there,

You should square the building by pressing "Q" on your keyboard.

-uftyv
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179622227
NeisBot (2026-03-10 07:31:32+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/13633174282 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Mole removal clinic"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-18 17:33:04+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180071769
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
uftyv (2026-03-10 07:38:59+00:00): Hi there,

I've noticed each building you add is it's own changeset. You can have multiple buildings in the same changeset.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179622710
uftyv (2026-03-10 07:41:36+00:00): Hi there,

I've noticed that each building you add to the map is it's own changeset. You can have multiple buildings in the same changeset.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179622828
OlasMapy (2026-03-12 18:56:02+00:00): Skąd wiesz, że ta ulica jest w budowie? Ja tam ostatnio byłem i nie było budowy
Artur | Yanosik (2026-03-13 06:23:56+00:00): https://zdmikp.bydgoszcz.pl/pl/drogi-miejskie/9193-ulica-a-czartoryskiego-bedzie-dwukierunkowa-ulatwienie-dla-kierowcow kierowałem się oficjalnym komunikatem ZDM.
mariem_mohamed (2026-03-10 13:03:48+00:00): Vantor satellite imagery via Vantor Hub 2025-10-23
NeisBot (2026-03-10 07:57:53+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 15 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1105111970 v1 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/332386091 v4 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/10112887420 v2
https://osm.org/node/2466659558 v5

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179623715
iandees (2026-03-10 13:40:59+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
ajmat (2026-03-11 07:35:32+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179678108
Frans S (2026-03-10 09:22:11+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
When you see an object showing a shadow on both the inside and the outside, it has no roof. Thus, not a building. Don't map these objects.
Best regards
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:30:02+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179682219
iandees (2026-03-10 13:41:04+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Frans S (2026-03-10 08:47:40+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 delivers 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. 
E: Buildings not squared or rounded.
G: Included the shadow of the building.


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/179623899
Marcel Imanuel Kilapong (2026-03-10 08:02:16+00:00): Memoto Photographer Balikpapan