piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-03-16 20:21:43+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/node/13653307686 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-24 23:33:11+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/179970889
007Transformer (2026-03-17 09:09:19+00:00): Reverted in changeset id 179992234
hauke-stieler (2026-03-23 20:11:48+00:00): Moin,

eine Frage und eine Anmerkung zu deinen Änderungen.

Die Straße https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/251562368 hat für mich durchaus als unclassified gepasst: Über ihr läuft hauptsächlich Siedlungsverkehr, aber ist breiter und größer gebaut als die Querstraßen, die teilweise nicht mal durchgängige Bürgersteige haben. Nur um evtl. Verwirrung zu vermeiden: Das "unclassified" heißt nicht, dass das nicht vollständig getaggt ist. Das ist ein gültiger Wert und entspricht in Deutschland Nebenstraßen, die also kleiner sind als z.B. Kreisstraßen, und Siedlungen erschließen oder verbinden. Jemand mit mehr Ortskenntnis darf hier gerne wieder in unclassified umtaggen, ich finde residential auch ok und bin da auch kein Profi.

Eine Frage habe ich dann bzgl. der ganzen living_street Wege: Sind das wirklich alles per Schild vorhandene verkehrsberuhigte Bereiche? Aktuell haben die nämlich teilweise noch sowas wie maxspeed=30 getaggt. Das ist definitiv nicht korrekt und in OSM sollte kein highway=living_street ein maxspeed=* tragen. Magst du hier nochmal rüber gehen und schauen, dass alle Straße wirklich richtig getaggt sind? Danke.

Viele Grüße
Hauke
hauke-stieler (2026-03-31 11:44:39+00:00): Moin, magst du auf meine obige Frage bzgl. der ganzen living_street Änderungen einmal antworten, danke.
Dijkstra_Is_A* (2026-04-28 17:26:22+00:00): @hauke-stieler Der Gudower Weg ist nun Teil einer Tempo-30 Zone, u. a. um den Durchgangsverkehr zu verlangsamen. Er wird als Umleitung der gesperrten Altstadt über den Wildpark genutzt.
Ich lasse den geänderten highway=* erst mal. (Der nördliche Teil vom Gudower Weg wurde warum auch immer nicht geändert.)

Die living_street Wege sind nicht als solche gekennzeichnet (VZ 325.1).
Ich ändere sie dort, wo ich mappe, wieder zurück.
Mir scheint, als basieren die Änderungen nur auf Luftbildern.
hauke-stieler (2026-04-30 19:32:52+00:00): Super, dass du dir das hier einmal anschaust. Vielen Dank! :)
MappingMore (2026-03-17 09:31:37+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179993947
MassCartog (2026-03-17 13:25:22+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
LDiekmann (2026-03-17 16:27:33+00:00): Hello,

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to explain the OpenStreetMap data policy. I understand and respect OSM’s general approach of documenting features that physically exist on the ground.

However, I would like to provide additional context as a professional land manager working on behalf of a conservation organization. The path in question is an unauthorized, user-created trail located entirely on private conservation property that is actively being managed for habitat protection and public safety. Its presence in widely used navigation and recreation apps has already contributed to ongoing trespass and resource impacts.

While I recognize that OSM typically maps informal or unauthorized paths, this situation involves active land management efforts to close and rehabilitate the route. Our organization is working to decommission the trail on the ground, including restoration measures and access control. Continued visibility in public mapping platforms directly undermines these management actions and creates real liability and conservation concerns.

I am willing to follow OSM tagging conventions in the interim and will update the feature with clear attributes such as access=no, private=yes, and notes indicating that the trail is unauthorized and closed. However, I respectfully ask that you consider allowing removal of the feature once restoration efforts have progressed and the tread is no longer evident on the ground.

If there are recommended best practices within the OSM community for situations involving formal trail closures or active ecological restoration, I would appreciate any guidance you can share. My goal is to ensure that mapping data does not unintentionally contribute to trespass, safety risks, or environmental degradation.

Thank you for your understanding and for the work you do maintaining open geographic data.

Best regards,
Liam Diekmann
MassCartog (2026-03-18 17:59:50+00:00): Thanks for the reply, and thanks for the understanding. The normal recommendation from the OSM community is exactly what It sounds like you are doing already. Make the ground reality match what you would like to see on the map. When the trail no logger exists on the ground you can definitely remove it! OSM is only concerned with what exists today.
rskedgell (2026-03-17 09:09:45+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

A tourism=viewpoint node on a one-way residential street surrounded by terraced housing seems unlikely. What were you trying to achieve with this edit?
klauz84 (2026-03-17 09:45:34+00:00): Hi, I wanted to insert it as a photo point, I think I was wrong the type. If it's against guidelines I can remove/edit it.
rskedgell (2026-03-18 11:40:24+00:00): I'm not sure what the right tag would be for this, so it might be worth asking on https://community.openstreetmap.org/ for suggestions.
NeisBot (2026-03-16 21:15:47+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/node/13605699088 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisAgent (2026-03-17 05:33:21+00:00): 🕵 It looks like you reintroduced text that was previously flagged as promotional and removed after a review. Could you please explain why it was added again?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-06 08:31:04+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185182758
UI Facilities Information (2026-03-20 21:22:13+00:00): This hasn't pushed to google maps yet....must I do something to help push this?
SekeRob (2026-03-17 10:42:21+00:00): Hi sscotty71

Don't know for whom you made these wetland tags on viewpoints, renamed a street as seeming some walking route and used generic names like scene 1, 2, 3, 4 but these have no place on Openstreetmap. I have undone them. If these were for same external project, then I suggest u look and umap to store this and use it for you project.

I've copied this comment to one of change sets to for public awareness

cheers
Udarian (2026-03-16 21:57:58+00:00): Shouldn't the section of I95 that US 1 uses that SR 5 thus follows be tagged with the unsigned_ref of 5, so unsigned_ref=SR 9A;SR 5 .  I ask as since the relation uses those ways, shouldn't they also be tagged as such. 

Happy mapping,
Udar.
NE2 (2026-03-16 22:01:43+00:00): Good catch. Yes, they should, and I will fix it.
iandees (2026-03-17 04:22:15+00:00): Hello! I noticed that nodes https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11363188673, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2937924554 were moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179980025, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-06 13:36:22+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182295238
NeisBot (2026-03-16 21:45:47+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/node/13606017950 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-24 23:33:14+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180380752
(Restore previous tags. No changes)
FajrAl (2026-03-20 09:37:32+00:00): tag distance dalam OSM itu dalam satuan meter
NeisBot (2026-03-16 21:57:48+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/node/13606277359 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-06 08:31:56+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185182832
Sammyhawkrad (2026-03-17 08:43:56+00:00): Hi XXTENTATION, the name=* tag is used for official or recognised name of places. Using descriptions such as "field" is discouraged. Similarly, operator=* also takes a name. Physical tags such as amenity=bank or leisure=pitch describe what the object is, so it's unnecessary to add that as names.
qstep (2026-03-16 22:06:08+00:00): A vonalak megállói egyelőre nem pontosak, ezt később javítom.
Till_btn (2026-03-17 11:26:22+00:00): Auch hier fehlt die Quellenangabe, woher kommt "bicycle=yes"? Der Bürgersteig am Alten Hessenweg ist nicht für Radfahrer freigegeben, VZ 239 ist korrekt eingetragen
NGL-engel (2026-03-17 20:26:31+00:00): Auf mapillary.com gibt es Bilder, die den Bürgersteig als Fußweg ausweisen, der aber für Radfahrer freigegeben ist (traffic_sign=DE:239,1022-10). Die Bilder sind zwar aus dem Jahr 2023, in der Regel ändert sich so etwas aber nicht ständig.  

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.21699180000002&lng=10.38879970000005&z=19.287670488289425&menu=false&pKey=170498685831745&focus=photo&x=0.5357665745177327&y=0.5416526201580307&zoom=0.2557630654093199
Till_btn (2026-03-17 21:43:23+00:00): Bitte dann Mapillary auch als Quelle nennen. Hier gibt es sogar Bilder von 2024, wo man die neue Beschilderung sieht: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.2168556&lng=10.388673499999982&z=19.287670488289425&menu=false&focus=photo&pKey=543145201725501

Ich würde ohne Ortskenntnis Mapillary nur aus den letzten 1-2 Jahren nutzen, außerdem immer schauen, ob der Way in der Zeit schon von wem anders angefasst wurde
NGL-engel (2026-03-18 20:19:25+00:00): Wo du Recht hast, hast du recht. 

Danke
maro21 (2026-03-18 20:23:44+00:00): surface=sand/gravel/stones nie będzie poprawnie interpretowane przez aplikacje. Lepiej dać bardziej ogólne określenie lub podzielić drogę na mniejsze odcinki i każdemu dać inną nawierzchnię.
GA_Kevin (2026-03-16 23:29:19+00:00): Hey whats the source for these pipeline locations?
Arktorus (2026-03-17 14:30:16+00:00): Satelite images
Arktorus (2026-03-17 14:30:20+00:00): Esri
lncvyz (2026-03-17 01:59:03+00:00): Various changes around Bell Boulevard:

- Added more information to 18-25 212th Street, which houses PS 169 and Bell Academy
- Added Bell Academy point alongside PS 169
- Adjusted outlines of several buildings
NeisBot (2026-03-16 23:39:39+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 21 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/544291733 v5 | 12 crossings
https://osm.org/way/464320151 v3 | 9 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179975157
jm428 (2026-03-17 01:37:17+00:00): Hi, the reason you got the bot message above is because while moving around the map you accidentally dragged part of a sidewalk far from where it was supposed to be. I've fixed it so you can ignore the message from the bot.
lncvyz (2026-03-17 02:00:00+00:00): Various changes around UMass:

- Adjusted several polygons
- Added polygons representing grassy areas
- Added information to Marston and Holdsworth
lncvyz (2026-03-17 02:53:40+00:00): ah thank you jm428!! :)
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-17 06:26:26+00:00): Thanks for fixing @jm428

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179977014
Wildsharky (2026-03-25 10:40:38+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179990912
pmmikes (2026-03-25 09:03:01+00:00): Although it's closed, the physical building is still present. Can you revert this change please.
007Transformer (2026-03-18 10:22:14+00:00): Revert of 179975888
MappingMore (2026-03-22 02:53:06+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:180232490
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-05-25 11:38:53+00:00): cześć!

czemu w https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1339134376/history zmieniałeś bicycle=designated na bicycle=yes ?

(a, dzięki za dodanie informacji że https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1228449580/history ma ziemną nawierzchnię)
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-05-25 11:48:53+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684989037/history - jesteś pewien że tu jest zakaz jazdy konno?
rajdhani (2026-03-18 07:36:34+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:180043765
felipeeugenio (2026-03-17 11:52:33+00:00): Hola. Por favor no agregar información provada ni nombres descriptivos.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179976523
iandees (2026-03-17 04:20:08+00:00): Hi! It looks like the website URL on way/409892940 may have been copied from Google Maps (it contained Google tracking parameters). Please be careful not to copy information from Google into OpenStreetMap, as Google's data is copyrighted.
StC (2026-04-06 19:37:15+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là et, semble-t-il, fait disparaître un chemin forestier. Je vais tenter de m'occuper de la réparation.
petitdragon999 (2026-04-07 10:09:44+00:00): Ha hummm, peut être un bug de Vespucci ou une erreur de manip, j'ai fait la modif en live. Désolé !
NeisBot (2026-03-17 01:27:43+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/node/60064287 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisAgent (2026-03-17 05:33:17+00:00): 🕵 The mentioned node appears to be part of a highway=*

Businesses are usually mapped as standalone nodes (or within building polygons), rather than as part of a road geometry.
Wildsharky (2026-03-25 10:33:33+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:180047901
NeisBot (2026-03-17 01:27:44+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/334650708 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
ajmat (2026-03-18 09:16:33+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 180047308
Fa_bio (2026-03-17 01:57:03+00:00): como faço pra baixar isso?
tomhukins (2026-03-23 11:55:52+00:00): You have described these changes as "cycle access" but as far as I can tell you have added 20mph speed restrictions to various roads.

Firstly, it helps other mappers review your changes when you describe them accurately.

Secondly, for sizeable changes like this it helps to describe what you have done, and the reasons behind it, in more detail as described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
felipeeugenio (2026-03-17 13:25:45+00:00): Hola. Agregó otras tres veces lo que ya estaba una vez.

Además, por favor, escribir con capitalización normal.

saludos
007Transformer (2026-03-18 05:52:44+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:180039656
wireguy (2026-03-20 18:05:57+00:00): Angry!   there were some hidden characters in the phone number, maybe from pasting?   I've removed them.  Thanks for the info, keep mapping!
felipeeugenio (2026-03-17 11:50:43+00:00): Hola. Es un camino Publico?
Ese es su nombre oficial? o es una descripción?
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179978012
felipeeugenio (2026-03-17 12:18:10+00:00): Se ve como un portón en el extremo sur, o no?

Esto es como un atajo, pero cuando está el portón abierto, o no?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179978012
IOTec EIRL (2026-03-18 00:30:22+00:00): es un camino publico que no tiene mantenimiento mas que el de los vecinos del sector, conozco el area y se que se puede utilizar sin problemas por toda la comunidad, ademas, no tiene portones ni nada.
felipeeugenio (2026-03-18 15:23:33+00:00): ok, gracias
NeisBot (2026-03-17 03:03:39+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 19 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1178419137 v2 | 16 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/3296800540 v6

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179978344
NeisReview (2026-03-25 05:33:02+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/180045593
GOwin (2026-03-17 04:13:36+00:00): Looks good!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179978413
GOwin (2026-03-17 04:15:53+00:00): The segment with culverts are not likely to follow the stream geometry, and are usually just that part going under a road.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179978455
Căprar Andrei (2026-03-24 00:40:35+00:00): Salut, mulțumesc pentru contribuții.
Anulez acest set de modificări deoarece ai specificat ca folosesti surse de la Google. Din păcate, acest lucru nu este compatibil cu licența OpenStreetMap (ODbL). Foloseste imaginile Bing sau ESRI.
osm.wiki/Legal_FAQ#Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps/Nokia_Maps/
Daca ai folosit surse compatibile, te rog incepe un fir de forum sau o pagina de wiki explicand sursele dumneavoastra inainte de a reaplica setul de modificari.
iandees (2026-03-17 04:19:32+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9026306734 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179979927, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
Shrinks99 (2026-04-26 23:59:27+00:00): In this changeset you restore demolished features.  Why?
NateDaGreat (2026-04-27 01:04:20+00:00): OpenRailwayMap uses them to map historic features
Shrinks99 (2026-04-27 03:03:09+00:00): This is in direct contradiction with OSM best practices: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features
Jarek 🚲 (2026-05-03 00:13:33+00:00): Hey Nate, OpenRailwayMap (the forked version at https://openrailwaymap.app/) also pulls in data from OpenHistoricalMap now, so razed railways can be properly mapped in OHM. Check it out https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenHistoricalMap
Totor (2026-03-19 04:49:18+00:00): Hi ajmat,
Was this revert triggered by my comment on the original changeset, or did you stumble on it by yourself?
I would have given the user a little more time to reply before to revert the edit.  I know it becomes more complicated with time, but we really can use more contributors in Cebu, and a revert of a first edit is not very encouraging ^_^
Cheers,

Totor
ajmat (2026-06-04 15:40:45+00:00): Hi Totor,
Thanks for reaching out. We noticed the removal of a valid highway geometry through quality checks, and decided to restore to maintain data quality.
I hear you on giving new mappers more time to reply. I’ll keep that in mind for similar situations in the future.
mini-me (2026-03-17 21:02:41+00:00): Здравствуйте! В ваших правках очень много ошибок:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8039217
поломана граница
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1489651000
некорректные статусы дорог 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43765774
луг заливает другие объекты
итд
Возможно, проще всё это откатить и попробовать ещё раз...
rarad74 (2026-03-19 09:46:12+00:00): Salut. Nu mai folosi imaginile bing in zona Buzaului si in general. Sunt cele mai vechi si sunt prost pozitionate de cele mai multe ori. Utilizeaza ESRI standard. Cladirile desenate de tine dupa imaginile Bing sunt deplasate. O zi buna!
rskedgell (2026-03-17 09:06:30+00:00): When you add separate sidewalks, the sidewalk:both=separate tag needs to be added to the way representing the "parent" street, replacing any existing sidewalk=* tag.
Prasanna Msamy (2026-03-18 02:54:12+00:00): Acknowledged. Going forward will take care of those tags now only we got this update. Thank you. 
Regards 
Prasanna Devi Madasamy