piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
flohoff (2025-12-12 21:32:18+00:00): Deine turn restriction gilt exakt in dem via node - Nirgends anders. Und wenn der node an der stelle ist wo die durchgezogene linie nicht mehr durchgezogen ist dann darf ich exakt an der stelle wenden.  Deshalb liegt der node häufig exakt dort, d.h. _wenn: man schon eine trennung macht dann macht man den exakt so das ich an den beiden enden das eben darf. 
Und ich ende das nicht absichtlich 5m vorher damit ich noch eine turn restriction platzieren kann. Turn restrictions sind eine scheiss pest.

Du vergleichst da gerade Birnen mit Äpfeln - das Mapillary Foto ist nicht an der Stelle wo du deine turn restriction platziert hat. Die trennung geht bis zur Bushaltestelle wo eben keine durchgezogene linie mehr ist. Und DA wo dann die durchgezogene linie endet hast du eine turn restriction gemacht. Das ist natürlich totaler unsinn.

Ich überwache in ganz NRW das routing sehr 2014 - und die größte quelle von "kaputten routing" sind turn restrictions. Die machen mehr kaputt als heile.

Und zum Thema Mapillary Bilder. Ich kenne die - Die 3000km Mapillary Bilder in GT sind in den letzten 10 jahren zu 95% von mir.

Und dein SabotagePupil ist output von diceware mit der ich url obfuscation betreibe ...

Flo
flohoff (2025-12-12 21:41:12+00:00): Um es zu verdeutlichen - Am Grünen punkt hast du eine turn restriction gesetzt das ich nicht wenden darf. Aber exakt an der Stelle darf ich es wieder. Deshalb ist es so gemapped.

https://tmp.zz.de/20251212-EmpiricalTwentieth/Screenshot_from_2025-12-12_22-36-00.JPG
stirps (2025-12-12 23:58:27+00:00): Das Ding ist dass ich die changesets bei einer quasi "Mapping-Party" gemacht hatte. Da hatte ich dann auch eine Person gefragt ob man die Turn Restrictions hinzufügt und das wurde bejaht. Ich verstehe auch nicht ganz inwieweit die turn restrictions da so viel kaputt machen sollten - relations sind sowieso auf dem Kreisverkehr drauf wegen der Busse also gehe ich doch davon aus, dass sich wenn jemand da dran traut er/sie weiß wie man mit relations umgeht. Außerdem ist iD bzgl. turn restrictions ziemlich einfach gestrickt, ein Klick und die sind weg/abgeändert, ich weiß nicht wie das in JOSM oder anderen tools ist.

Die Mapillary-Bilder sind sehr hilfreich, danke dafür.

Bzgl SabotagePupil: Ok, sorry dafür, ich bin von klassischer Ordnerstruktur mit eigens gewählten Namen ausgegangen, hatte mich halt gefragt was das dann solle ^_^"

Stirps
NeisBot (2025-12-11 17:20:56+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 10 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
https://osm.org/way/545013513 v2 | crossings=5
https://osm.org/way/19971803 v10 | crossings=3

Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/210164812 v13

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=175782712
NeisBot (2025-12-11 17:25:54+00:00): Should be fixed by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175788543
pitscheplatsch (2025-12-11 21:59:59+00:00): ok
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-12 17:55:33+00:00): Abbreviations shouldn't be used in refs.  "I 42 FUT" should be "I 42 Future".
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-17 02:32:35+00:00): Additionally, ref=* on ways, while deprecated, is also only for *signed* routes, which I 42 Future is not.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-17 07:36:11+00:00): `ref` is deprecated for ways? I don't think that's true at all, especially for highways. Also, Wikipedia says that I-42 has already been Congressionally designated. Does this not count?
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-17 13:17:34+00:00): Route refs are deprecated in favor of relations.  Congressionally designated isn't signed, and considering there's talks of removing the Martin Luther King Junior Expressway in Tulsa, I doubt I 42 is happening at all.  I 444 is congressionally designated but hasn't been signed since the 70s.
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-17 13:18:14+00:00): There's also Interstate 505 in Portland.  It's *never* been signed.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-17 17:23:45+00:00): Both cases can be indicated by `unsigned_ref=I 444` and `unsigned_ref=I 505`, respectively. Wikipedia's "List of future Interstate highways" article lists I-3, I-7/9, I-42, and I-67 as one- and two-digit future highways that will become Interstates. Also, the OSM Wiki specifically states that highways should still have `ref=*` tags for backward compatibility, not exactly something I'd say is "deprecated."
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-18 00:42:24+00:00): Yeah, backward compatibility for software that hasn't been updated in almost 20 years. It's deprecated.
NeisBot (2025-12-14 07:56:59+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Calton Datx office"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-16 17:28:36+00:00): 🔴 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the original contributor or remaining promotional text in description tags by https://osm.org/changeset/176016457
redd (2025-12-13 10:06:55+00:00): Hallo thetornado76,
es scheint so, also nimmst du hier immer wieder automatisierte Edits vor. Und so wird aus einer Praxis für Physiotherapie mit health_specialty:occupational_therapy=yes ein healthcare:speciality=occupational und dann ein healthcare:speciality=occupational_therapy. 

Das sind meinem Verständnis nach unterschiedliche Werte. Das erste bedeutet, dass die Praxis unter anderen Angeboten auch diese Spezialisierung anbietet, die Letzteren welchen Schwerpunkt die Praxis hat.
Einen arbeitsmedizinischen Therapieschwerpunkt kann ich auf der Webseite nicht erkennen: https://www.physiolex.de/

Bitte unterlasse solche Arten von Änderungen ohne Überprüfung der Objekte, z.B. vor Ort oder anhand Webseite.

Danke und Grüße,

redd
thetornado76 (2025-12-13 17:35:59+00:00): Hallo Redd,
Wie du richtig anmerkst wird occupational für Arbeitsmedizin genutzt und davon ist auf der Homepage nichts zu erkennen. Vor ca. 7 Jahren habe ich das fälschlicherweise gesetzt anstatt occupational_therapy und jetzt korrigiert. 
Viele Grüße thetornado76
AndresDuhour (2026-03-20 10:11:15+00:00): Buen día! Consulto porque el bulevar Perón tiene veredas al costado de la calle y paradas de colectivo. El agregado de foot=no no se condice con esta situación impidiendo el ruteo para peatones por esta calle. Me parece que debería eliminarse esa restricción. Saludos!
Andrés
NeisBot (2025-12-11 17:21:06+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 9 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
https://osm.org/way/19976017 v26 | crossings=4
https://osm.org/way/612851495 v3 | crossings=3

Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/270207837 v5

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=175783685
NeisRevert (2025-12-11 22:03:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/175822033
where the comment is: "Revert of unintended geometry change"
NeisRevert (2025-12-11 22:03:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/175822039
where the comment is: "Revert of unintended geometry change"
citrula (2025-12-14 18:11:51+00:00): can you explain what you have added in this changeset, with a short comment? "dome"or "done" are not sufficient to help other editors understand what you are adding.
Xvtn (2025-12-14 18:46:53+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OSM! Regarding "Removed unnecessary borders" - If I recall correctly, this WMA area was imported verbatim from the official source. That small exclusion you removed, as far as I know, is legitimate. Do you have any more info on this? Perhaps the actual boundary has indeed changed?
jaredjared (2025-12-18 04:35:59+00:00): you're right. that was my mistake It looked strange so i had assumed it was an error. I will go ahead and fix it.
Matt's (2025-12-11 03:36:38+00:00): source aerial imagery
Frans S (2025-12-19 11:57:27+00:00): Welcome to the tasking manager and thanks for mapping buildings in this task.
 * Please accurately outline all buildings.
 * Buildings should be mapped without snapping their corners to other buildings and features such as roads and paths.



Keep on mapping!
HappyK3C3 (2025-12-19 13:54:19+00:00): hi, thank you for checking. May I know, maybe example for which part (like by XY) that snapped to the roads and paths? and also, I think for this grid, I didn't do by my self, because I wasn't able to continue finish this grid due to someone else also working on this grid after me, I think.
But as far, as I remember, I have tried to not snap to the roads or parths, that is why, I'm a bit curious, maybe if you can share to me the XY of part that snapped their corners, or snapped to the roads, this can help me to make sure for next.
Frans S (2025-12-19 15:47:16+00:00): Hello. I use a standard script to react to connected buildings and features.
You just connected many buildings with their nodes. No roads.
Just open this changeset in JOSM, and you can see what I mean.
I accepted this situation due to the urgency of this project. If these (small) issues have to be solved, it delays the progress of this project.
Best regards
HappyK3C3 (2025-12-19 16:36:58+00:00): Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestion. Ah I see, I will check in JOSM then.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-08 14:54:41+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1457659245/history has building = 164 that was added in this edit
What this tag means? Numeric value is unexpected here and it is unclear what it means
ZLima12 (2025-12-17 15:44:23+00:00): Hi,

This probably shouldn't go in ref=*. fut_ref=* on the ways should be fine, but the ideal way to do this would be a route relation with network=US:I:Future
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-17 17:26:49+00:00): I also created three relations for Future I-7/9: one for the northbound direction, one for the southbound direction, and a super-relation containing the other two.
ZLima12 (2025-12-17 17:36:12+00:00): I see now, that's good. The way refs should still probably only be CA 99 though, especially in this case where the possible Interstate designations are not really very far along.
idkwhatname2use (2025-12-19 00:15:34+00:00): What made you decide to add this to OSM? California Streets and Highways Code §§ 307 and 309 already define two different state routes designated as Route 7 and 9 respectively, so this is definitely not going to happen before 2027 when bills passed by the California Legislature in 2026 go into effect.... This edit should probably be undone
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-19 07:09:54+00:00): @idkwhatname2use This isn't about California State Routes 7 and 9. This edit concerns a new 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲, which could be designated either I-7 or I-9 (but (probably) not both). My motivation for adding Future I-7/9 to OSM was its inclusion on the Wikipedia article "List of future Interstate highways." IIRC, the article only lists highways that, once upgraded to Interstate standards, will be designated an Interstate. (In the meantime, they might get signposted as "Future I-x (Corridor)".)
compdude (2025-12-31 05:05:21+00:00): I'd strongly encourage you to move the Future I-7/I-9 to the fut_ref=* tag. Having it in the ref=* tag just adds clutter to the map. Also, calling this Future I-7 or I-9 is pretty much just roadgeek speculation imho.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-31 05:22:01+00:00): First of all, these highways are already tagged as fut_ref=I 7;I 9. Secondly, this isn't "roadgeek speculation" because it represents an actual plan by California to add an Interstate to State Route 99. In fact, that's why it's been upgraded to freeway standards and will soon be upgraded to Interstate standards.
Minh Nguyen (2025-12-31 05:28:08+00:00): Please delete the relations and revert the ref=* tags. This does not even qualify for fut_ref=* because no Future Interstate corridor signs have gone up.

If you need to make a map of where the routes would go, you can do that in an Overpass query that lists the way IDs and upload the result to Wikimedia Commons as a GeoJSON file. See the tutorial at https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/AARoads:Maps/Tutorial

An Interstate 7 or 9 would require legislative action to renumber an existing state route. California does not use the same legislative number for a state route as an unrelated Interstate, and the legislative route numbers are aligned with sign numbers. You must already know this, since you’ve been citing that section of the Streets and Highways Code as justification in some of your other changesets.
compdude (2025-12-31 05:30:36+00:00): Sorry, but I'm going to remove it from the ref=* tag. It's just unnecessary clutter. And while Caltrans certainly has been upgrading CA 99 to Interstate highway standards, do you have any actual evidence that Caltrans is actively working on giving CA 99 an Interstate number? If not, then this is definitely just roadgeek speculation.
compdude (2025-12-31 06:26:31+00:00): I've reverted this change in changeset 176658877.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-31 18:27:15+00:00): For the hundredth time, there's a Wikipedia article on Future Interstate corridors, with 7/9 being one of them. If this isn't evidence for the existence of a future I-7/I-9, then I don't know what is (I don't live in California, but I've been there many times).
idkwhatname2use (2025-12-31 19:22:04+00:00): CA 99 being a future interstate has been roadgeek speculation for well over a decade at this point. Also, as I and Minh Nguyen pointed out, California Streets and Highways Code already define a Route 7 and Route 9 (California state law does not distinguish between any type of state route, whether that be an interstate, U.S. highway, or CA Shield route). There is no legislative policy that this designation will occur anytime soon. Also, California is in a budget deficit, I doubt the Legislature will want to burn hundreds of millions of dollars on changing signs…, and these are just a few of many other reasons why this is an inappropriate edit
Minh Nguyen (2025-12-31 20:40:39+00:00): Since it seems there’s still a disagreement, let’s continue the discussion on the forum where others can weigh in:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/future-interstate-designation-along-california-state-route-99/139900
NeisBot (2025-12-14 07:57:02+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Home care agency in Coral Springs FL"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-14 14:07:16+00:00): ✅ Corrected by https://osm.org/changeset/175789880
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-24 13:39:08+00:00): Cleaned up remaining SEO spam and other tagging for POI in changeset 184524623

https://osm.org/changeset/184524623
flohoff (2025-12-11 08:45:58+00:00): Hi,
ich habe hier die Ampeln wieder gelöscht. Das ist eine reine Fußgängerampel und bekomtm kein highway=traffic_signals sondern nur highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals.

Das hat mit der berechnung im Routing bezüglich der penalties zu tun.
stirps (2025-12-11 16:53:07+00:00): Vielen Dank, das war mir nicht ganz klar. Ich gehe noch einmal durch die edits durch und schaue mal ob ich da noch mehr von den Ampeln finde, die korrigiere ich dann noch
marczoutendijk (2025-12-30 19:50:01+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144700107/history/4
highway=ford is completely wrong here as bridge and layer already take care of all the details. Please read this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Tag:highway%3Dford
confusedbuffalo (2025-12-11 13:18:28+00:00): Looks like you're well on the way to no invalid numbers in Canada! 

Here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11663930068

It looks to me like "+1-450-978-6888\;5889" was am attempt to denote an extension of 5889, but you removed that bit. There's no website I can see to check against though.
Stuart_L (2026-05-13 09:21:33+00:00): Looks like I put it back on as an extension, as I recall I spent some time crawling through city websites, confirmed their use of extensions and added it back in.
NeisBot (2025-12-14 07:57:03+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Law firm in Georgia"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-16 17:28:59+00:00): 🔴 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the original contributor or remaining promotional text in description tags by https://osm.org/changeset/176016471
archpdx (2025-12-13 05:17:10+00:00): Unless this has changed very recently, the only section of the 405 that has tolled express lanes is between the 605 and 73
Yushclay (2026-03-29 00:29:31+00:00): Can confirm with archpdx, no toll on express lanes south/east of CA 73. I will be removing toll tags.
HellMap (2025-12-11 10:59:15+00:00): Hello,

Could you please clarify what the way here is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1457670995 ? You have deleted the building passage twice, but this way is drawn through a building. This is not really a valid layout.

Also, when drawing buildings, please use their foundations as the shape, not their roof - that is misaligned as aerial is at an angle for tall structures.
HellMap (2025-12-12 11:25:27+00:00): Also, please do not move aligned feature to old layout before the Braslas iela was rebuilt. You moved the sidewalk to it's old position overlapping the road.
HellMap (2025-12-12 16:11:53+00:00): Can you please clarify the above question since you are continuing to edit, but have not replied yet.
Ruslan Fatih (2025-12-11 05:50:28+00:00): 92-автобус в аэропорт. Добавил автобусную остановку. 

Исправил дорогу.
Anil Basnet (2025-12-13 12:10:32+00:00): You have deleted a forest relation. Please undelete it.
I recommend you to undelete relation rather than creating a new one.
Er Prakash Gharti Magar (2025-12-14 02:37:42+00:00): I accidentally deleted relation 19599513 in this changeset and am reverting it to restore the original data. Sorry for the mistake.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175905042
KennyDap (2025-12-11 07:39:26+00:00): Fix Vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175789493
KennyDap (2025-12-11 07:39:05+00:00): Fix Vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175789485
Taya_S (2025-12-11 07:48:30+00:00): Please see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19151
Frans S (2025-12-11 11:26:36+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please do not add a layer to a building to hide an error. Just adjust the buildings and square them.
Best regards
Roydon Olive (2025-12-11 13:33:57+00:00): Why? Whats the point of dividing this?
czebureks (2026-01-13 14:07:44+00:00): Cześć! Czy te lokale skasowane zostały zlikwidowane (np. połączone z sąsiednimi), czy po prostu stoją puste? Jeżeli to drugie, to proponuję w Every Door zaznaczać "oznacz jako zamknięte" (punkt staje się wtedy disused:shop=*), a potem można ewentualnie zmienić w domu na shop=vacant. Dzięki temu zachowujemy informację o istnieniu lokali usługowych, nawet jeżeli są puste. Pozdrawiam
Marek-M (2026-01-13 19:43:53+00:00): Cześć, wg mojej pamięci zamiast Elsta jest teraz Żabka. Jeżeli chodzi o ten sklep z ubraniami, to teraz nie jestem pewien czy tam jest jakiś wolny lokal ale wg EGiB jest tam wydzielony budynek, więc powinno być widać miejsce z pustym lokalem. Jak nie zapomnę, to zerknę tam przy okazji. Tą funkcję z zamykaniem sklepów w Every Door znam i raczej bym jej użył ale wtedy pamiętam, że było zimno i może się spieszyłem :)
mueschel (2025-12-14 09:27:59+00:00): Are you sure there is a gate here blocking the main road?
Anusha Kodi (2026-04-17 03:09:55+00:00): "You're correct, that wasn't supposed to be there. The barrier was mistakenly added, but the update has been reverted and the road is back to normal now."
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I will make sure to be more cautious in future. Thank you.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-23 06:36:58+00:00): Reverted replacing a railway station with malformed SEO spam POI tags (and no top-level tags) sourced from Google Maps, which is prohibited by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184460843

https://osm.org/changeset/184460843
user_5359 (2025-12-11 07:40:16+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Sorry, but business entries without addresses are not in line with OSM. Please add the street and house number, or we will have to mark this as SPAM.
I have now reverted your changes.
NeisBot (2025-12-14 07:57:47+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Company providing digital services"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-14 08:13:17+00:00): ✅ Corrected by https://osm.org/changeset/175789513
HellMap (2025-12-12 11:40:33+00:00): Hello,

Can you please clarify where these speed limits are from? Is there a speed limit sign here or some other official restriction? Especially, where did you get the speed limit for a runway?
Rubenke (2026-03-17 00:05:23+00:00): Waarom heb je er weer een weg van gemaakt het is een fietspad...
Rubenke (2026-03-17 00:08:11+00:00): Zie ook bord G12a wat daar dus staat.
Rubenke (2026-03-17 00:12:10+00:00): Ik had dat zelfs aangeven in de voorgaande change #161973549 dat deze weg een fietspad geworden is, en je veranderd het zo weer terug
Seyruun (2025-12-12 00:42:54+00:00): Thanks for fixing my mistakes. :)
NeisBot (2025-12-11 17:21:40+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 55 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
https://osm.org/way/689464216 v2 | crossings=11
https://osm.org/way/1156215826 v3 | crossings=9
https://osm.org/way/1280066290 v1 | crossings=9

Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/6468000679 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=175789216