piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Gaung Tebono (2026-05-11 15:52:45+00:00): Once again I say yes, the classification is based on the level of urgency or importance of the road If the road is considered important enough to cause high traffic, it would be better to upgrade the type of road, actually, what I edited refers to the international "key:highway", not the Indonesian "key:highway".

Sekali lagi saya katakan ya, soal klasifikasi itu berdasarkan tingkat urgensi atau kepentingan dari jalan tersebut jika jalan tersebut dirasa cukup penting yang membuat lalu lintas tinggi sebaiknya ditingkatkan saja jenis jalan nya, sebenarnya yang saya edit ini mengacu pada key:highway internasional bukan key:highway nya Indonesia.
martianfreeloader (2026-03-28 10:04:26+00:00): Hi, thanks a lot for the edit. Is the name "Gozdna učna pot Tabot" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13686155668 correct or is that a typo?
BojanKras (2026-03-28 10:10:40+00:00): Tabor. Thank you.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-28 09:53:27+00:00): Hi, could you explain why these buildings were removed? They looked valid.
FroschForscher (2026-03-28 14:28:19+00:00): Hi, zur info, du kannst auch in StreetComplete Straßen aufspalten wenn du sie in einem Overlay öffnest und dann auf dir drei Punkte links unten tippst.
bxl-forever (2026-03-28 10:41:11+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM.

I noticed your edit and saw you requested a review.  From what I see, you took the grass area we had mapped and you changed its tags to make it a playground area.

From what I see on pictures we took in this area, there are a few scarce games for kids—which were already mapped before your edit—but I don’t think it is correct to make the entire grass area a playground.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1355608102168361

But maybe you live there and if the situation changed in the past weeks I will leave the benefit of the doubt and keep it, unless proven otherwise.

However, it is very unlikely that the playground itself has an English name.  I removed that name.  There is already a name on the park here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1057425880); moreover, name of places in Brussels (streets, parks…) are usually in French and Dutch, which are our official languages.  It is very rare that municipalities give a monolingual English name for such places.

If you have questions about this edit, please reply under this message.

Have a nice day.
marsbar28 (2026-03-28 10:18:59+00:00): *Bracknell even :-D
vectorial8192 (2026-06-08 05:29:39+00:00): Hi there, do you have more information about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493588817 ? Aerial imagery can only show trees in this area. Is this a usable hiking trail or a disused worksite access path?
kingkingHK (2026-06-19 08:31:08+00:00): @vectorial8192 When I went there last December, I do recall seeing a dirt path roughly following the geometry of the quoted way. But I didn't walk all the way down to Beacon Hill Road, so I can't confirm the lower section.
vectorial8192 (2026-06-23 12:00:43+00:00): The issue is that, with this "no extra info" path, routing software are gonna believe people can easily walk from the lower side to the upper side, which doesn't seem right. Also, this has no easy irl recovery in case the path actually should not exist in its current form, because the next available path that definitely works is at 1km+ away to the west (Nam Cheong Street), which is very unobvious.

Given the inactivity, seems best to make a new note for this.
vectorial8192 (2026-06-23 12:14:01+00:00): Spawned https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5357832
Kovoschiz (2026-06-23 17:19:14+00:00): @vectorial8192 It's the application's problem. They shouldn't assume `informal=yes` is safe and reliable.
vectorial8192 (2026-06-25 16:17:39+00:00): Rural "informal path" may have poor path visibility. The key is whether this path really exists, which I doubt, and is tracked and discussed at the note.
Lejun (2026-03-29 06:25:33+00:00): A supermarket in the middle of nowhere? Are you sure about that?
lenny32 (2026-04-07 08:09:13+00:00): l'attribut `cycleway:both=separate` n'est pas approprié : il n'y a pas de piste cyclable des deux côtés de la Rue du Midi, mais uniquement à gauche : voir le sujet sur le forum https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/interpretation-de-cycleway-both-separate/40588
eggie (2026-03-28 11:10:49+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   Het is niet de bedoeling om wegen van de kaart te verwijderen. Wanneer de juiste toegangsrechten zijn toegevoegd kunnen die wegen gewoon op de kaart blijven. Dit was niet als openbare weg getagd, maar als een oprijlaan. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-03-28 11:21:31+00:00): Oprijlaan teruggeplaatst
eggie (2026-03-28 11:20:43+00:00): Oprijlaan teruggeplaatst
eggie (2026-03-28 11:14:18+00:00): Nogmaals. Svp geen wegen en/of opritten van de kaart verwijderen. Wat is het probleem?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 11:19:58+00:00): Oprijlaan teruggeplaatst.
Het is geen openbare weg. 
Kijk even in de wiki wat OSM zegt over privewegen. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 11:30:12+00:00): Zie hier de wiki wat de policy is van OSM betreffende privewegen.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
SomeoneElse2 (2026-03-29 12:11:25+00:00): Hello,
Creating the crossing left a gap in the "Bristol_Triangular_City_Walk" (relation 2365565).  I've filled that in in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180579846 , but you may want to review the route so that it uses the pavement not the road itself: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2365565#map=19/51.451984/-2.585362 .
cryptickryptos (2026-03-29 22:49:19+00:00): Hi,
Thanks for the heads up about that. I'm really not great with actually mapping out these route relations but I will definitely be more careful to avoid leaving any gaps next time! Been a while since I've edited OSM so apologies if there's been any other errors I've introduced in other change sets

All the best
mstrbrid (2026-04-14 16:24:11+00:00): Hi, 
Nice to have another pavement mapper around town :-)
It might be worth checking some of the details before uploading these kind of pavements made by offsetting other geometry - there's several places in this changeset where the surface=* is incorrect for some stretches, and they tend to follow the shape of the kerb rather than the centreline / routing line particularly across the wider areas. It would also be worth connecting at all junctions where there is an obvious desire route to cross (with appropriate  barrier=kerb). Lastly, keep an eye out for sidewalk=* tags on the neighbouring highway and change them to sidewalk:(side):separate once you've added a pavement.
eggie (2026-03-28 11:13:29+00:00): Hier verplaats je een adresnode naar een heel ander gebied.
access=unknown voegt niets toe. motor_vehicle=designated hoort niet op wegen. Dat is default.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=180537503
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 11:16:55+00:00): Adres hersteld
eggie (2026-03-28 11:26:43+00:00): .. motor_vehicle=designated heb ik verwijderd. Je zet het wagenwijd open voor autoverkeer. Dat zal niet de bedoeling zijn. Wellicht bedoel je motor_vehicle=destination? 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 12:11:44+00:00): aangepast naar destination
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:40:08+00:00): That's obviously not its name.
fester7 (2026-03-28 12:11:09+00:00): Beste Leo,

Wat is je reden van de naamswijziging? Deze halte heet Vondelstraat, geen Burgemeester Pruissingel. Op het haltebord staat dit zelf ook.
Leo Slager (2026-03-28 12:50:18+00:00): Dat is een leuke. De RET wijzigt de haltenaam in de dienstregeling maar past buiten op straat het haltebord niet aan.
Misschien komt dat nog ?
Wat mij betreft kan de wijziging ongedaan worden gemaakt.
fester7 (2026-03-28 13:19:04+00:00): RET is niet heel consequent in hun omleidingen communiceren. De dienstregeling waarin de omleiding is verwerk geeft overigens ook Vondelstraat aan. 

Ik zal de bewerking ongedaan maken, dank voor de info
eggie (2026-03-28 11:23:39+00:00): Conrad,
Alle begin is moeilijk. In zo'n geval taggen we access=private

Het moet wel aangegeven staan. 

MVG
eggie
eteb3 (2026-05-31 17:53:53+00:00): Hi, 

I've fixed the tags on the way/1493534731

I don't know if it was an accident: the Sikh gurdwara was tagged as a Muslim mosque.

Happy mapping
Aethonatic (2026-05-31 19:31:47+00:00): Ah, thank you, it seems I must've mixed some things up when tagging it.
eggie (2026-03-28 11:57:34+00:00): De oprijlaan wederom teruggezet
eggie (2026-03-28 11:59:40+00:00): Svp geen wegen van de kaart verwijderen.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 12:07:37+00:00): Dit is niet getagd als openbare weg.. access=private is toegevoegd. Het zal straks niet routeren in OSM na update van de verschillende routers.
access=private routeert niet. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 11:55:50+00:00): Dag Conrad   fence is een afrastering. .. barrier=gate gebruiken we bij een hek.
Dat tag je op een node verbonden met de weg.
woodpeck (2026-03-28 13:37:47+00:00): This is an undocumented import and will be reverted. Please follow the import guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import) and discuss your import with the community before you continue.
eggie (2026-03-28 11:53:18+00:00): name aangepast naar description
eggie (2026-03-28 12:26:20+00:00): Dag melluh  fine_gravel zal eerder tracktype=grade2 zijn.
Er lopen ook een fietsroutes.  Ik heb het aangepast naar grade2.. (half verhard en dan routeerbaar voor fietsers ) 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 11:50:21+00:00): Dag Conrad... Svp geen name=,.......  gebruiken om iets te beschrijven. Dus geen name=Mestloods. Evt kun je description gebruiken.
MVG
eggie
NeisBot (2026-03-28 11:57:44+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/13686308237 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-04-05 16:33:05+00:00): 🗑️ Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/180542508
eggie (2026-03-28 12:15:30+00:00): Welkom bij OSM,

bedankt voor uw toevoeging. 
Svp geen adres gaan aanpassen. Ik zal het weer herstellen.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-28 12:17:37+00:00): Adres hersteld.. relatie verwijderd.
MVG
eggie
ralley (2026-03-30 00:04:36+00:00): Please do not remove paths just because they are informal - this was correctly tagged as informal, not visible and surface=grass.  It is definitely navigable as can be seen from the Mapillary imagery
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180539851
Bienson (2026-03-29 01:10:48+00:00): Also access=private und nicht access=no
NeisAgent (2026-03-28 17:34:15+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google 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 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.
Ruyeex (2026-03-28 18:13:15+00:00): Same comment as the other one
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-28 18:30:33+00:00): Thanks for your reply @Ruyeex 👍
NeisBot (2026-03-28 12:39:44+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/13686389607 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-04-05 16:33:07+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180906679
(Delete spam tags. First version)
hatul (2026-05-20 12:10:43+00:00): שלום,
מחקת בטעות את היחס של שביל ישראל בקטע הבא. בבקשה להיזהר. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493607532
Bienson (2026-03-29 01:18:50+00:00): Beim access-Tag geht es nicht um die Passierbarkeit eines Weges, sondern um die Zugangsbeschränkungen. Ich denke nicht, dass hier Schilder stehen, die den Zugang beschränken. Wenn die Wege nicht mehr passierbar sind/nicht mehr existieren, sind es dann disused:highway=path.
Bienson (2026-03-29 01:15:16+00:00): Also access=customers
osmviborg (2026-03-28 15:13:26+00:00): source:maxspeed=sign passer så ikke længere
NeisBot (2026-03-28 13:06:45+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/node/13686422941 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-04-05 16:33:10+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180906682
(Delete spam tags. First version)
NeisAgent (2026-03-28 17:34:17+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google 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 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.
NeisBot (2026-03-28 13:09:46+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/13686382997 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-04-05 16:33:14+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180906684
(Delete spam tags. First version)
NeisAgent (2026-03-28 17:34:19+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google 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 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 (2026-06-16 23:46:11+00:00): Reverted inexplicable removal of building tags from building way, with explicit source=* of Google Maps which is not allowed by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184203472

https://osm.org/changeset/184203472
NeisBot (2026-03-28 13:27:48+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/411437377 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "KlimatyzacjaEMPLARYHere is the rewritten response:
Klimatyzacja montaż"
---
Na przykład, bardziej neutralna i obiektywna wersja Twojego tekstu mogłaby brzmieć: "Klimatyzacja to urządzenie które montuje się w celu utrzymania odpowiedniej temperatury, na przykład klimatyzacja montaż"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
bartgron (2026-03-28 21:31:10+00:00): Opis (tag description) został usunięty, ponieważ stanowił reklamę.
Pozdrawiam
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-29 06:36:11+00:00): Thanks @bartgron

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180559778
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:44:30+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/185087341 ?
Kovoschiz (2026-03-29 07:29:55+00:00): Don't add the same `name=` to `=playground` inside a `=park` (where there can be multiple of them, as it's used similar to `=pitch` for patches of playgrounds)
Kovoschiz (2026-03-29 07:32:24+00:00): If you want, you might try `addr:housename=` , but that will be opposed for not being a postal address. While `is_in:housename=` is often misunderstood as deprecated, here it's indeed unneeded as there's a spatial relationship. You shouldn't add such attributes to `=fitness_station` , `=pitch` inside either.
kingkingHK (2026-05-16 09:46:08+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182733463
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:45:02+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40959234 ?
kingkingHK (2026-05-21 09:23:21+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182965504
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:45:18+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184798477 ?
kingkingHK (2026-05-21 09:22:22+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182965465
morkovkin (2026-03-28 14:52:15+00:00): Время работы для Ivanor я вчера указал и сомневаюсь, что оно успело устареть)
Могу вернуть?
literan (2026-03-29 13:46:19+00:00): извиняюсь, не заметил) думал вы только название поменяли
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:45:41+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106034065 ?
kingkingHK (2026-05-16 09:53:45+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182733799
NeisBot (2026-03-28 15:28:07+00:00): 🌍 Welcome to OSM, Justabill a idk.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Added houses"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:46:02+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197739476 ?
kingkingHK (2026-05-16 09:52:30+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182733750
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:48:28+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304380903 ? (Or is this about the surface playground, which probably don't carry this name?)
kingkingHK (2026-05-16 09:51:35+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182733692
NeisAgent (2026-03-28 17:34:21+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google 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 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.
Ruyeex (2026-03-28 17:51:59+00:00): It wasn't plagiarism the info of Google but using it as reference to mapping as I wanted to make the streets more detailed given I don't have much info based on mapping or I'm oblivious to alternatives given at some point I wanted to record my walks to get better information on my scanning.
Sorry for that.
The changes are just street adjustement, parking lots and some crossroads.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-28 18:30:21+00:00): Thanks for your reply @Ruyeex 👍
bartgron (2026-03-28 20:42:38+00:00): Zestaw zmian został wycofany z powodu błędów.
Pozdrawiam
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:48:54+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291481809 ?
kingkingHK (2026-05-16 09:50:19+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182733664
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:50:18+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/249316008 ?
kingkingHK (2026-05-16 09:48:09+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182733563
kingkingHK (2026-03-29 03:50:41+00:00): Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12917849 ?
kingkingHK (2026-05-16 09:46:49+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182733500
NeisBot (2026-03-28 14:16:16+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 (2 changesets) shows that 394 of your last 419 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=11427564
NeisBot (2026-03-28 15:28:08+00:00): 🌍 Welcome to OSM, Userodjakd.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Adjusted node geometry"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment
Jordi MF (2026-03-28 14:50:35+00:00): En este changeset se ha eliminado la información de la extensión exacta de las nuevas piscina municipales (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1491624446) y se ha substituido por un nodo (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13686528211).
Si se observa la ortofoto provisional del ICGC, puede verse dicha extensión, fácilmente mapeable.
woodpeck (2026-03-29 08:27:33+00:00): Hallo Jakob48, ich habe keine Ortskenntnis aber ich hatte wegen der Marienschlucht Email-Verkehr mit der Gemeinde, dort teilte man mir vorgestern bezüglich dieses Weges hier folgendes mit: "dieser Weg bleibt vorerst gesperrt. Hier müssen noch einige Arbeiten vorgenommen werden und die Zuständigkeiten geklärt werden. Er ist im Moment nicht begehbar." - das klingt für mich nicht nach "dauerhaft gesperrt", aber es kann natürlich noch ein Weilchen dauern...