piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-08 02:54:38+00:00): Hi Bernard and Pascal, thanks for the initial work here! It seems like there was some additional cleanup from this changeset that was missed here--[Node 4569700105](https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4569700105) was changed from a tanning salon to a _second_ instance of the Ears Decor POI, across the street from the apparent actual location, with a blatantly promotional description and nonsense top-level tagging. Additionally, shop=yes was inexplicably adding to the overall building. And I'm unclear as to the practical purpose of the remaining note=* for mappers, especially since no website=* is linked or mentioned anywhere I can find.

I reverted the SEO spam promotion and nonsense tagging changing the existing tanning POI to Ears Decor, removed the note=* tag referring to a non-existent website (none was tagged or mentioned on the POI, and it isn't clear the usefulness of such a comment even if so), removed the inappropriate shop=* tag from the overall building & formatted the phone=* per the local standards in changeset 183805929

https://osm.org/changeset/183805929
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-09 07:05:06+00:00): Hi CAM,

I have also come across spam in the note=* tag a few times. Back then, I sometimes decided not to delete it, although unfortunately I no longer remember the exact reasons why. In this case, I agree that it did not make sense to keep it.

Best, Pascal
ChrissW-R1 (2026-01-09 23:29:32+00:00): https://osm.org/way/1465242184

How could a glacier be intermittent?
NeisBot (2026-01-08 07:04:53+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/13439073845 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Plastic surgery clinic in Elk Grove Village"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:45:21+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363815
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
NeisBot (2026-01-08 06:58:01+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):
https://osm.org/way/402501156 v5 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/402351769 v5 | 3 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176969270
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-08 07:08:07+00:00): In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts. I have checked the mentioned elements and can confirm that the current configuration is valid.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal
NeisBot (2026-01-08 07:04:55+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/13439113969 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Garage in Green Bay WI"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:45:23+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363817
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
keyyushi (2026-01-08 16:44:34+00:00): Hello, thank you for your edits.

However, I have a question. What is the source of the road you added? It is stated on the Wiki that roads should not be separated unless there is a physical barrier. According to the aerial imagery you provided as a source, they should not be separated either. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong. 
Wishing you a good day.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway
NumisK (2026-01-10 03:02:02+00:00): Hi keyyushi,

Thank you for your feedback. I have reassessed my edit and I agree with your point. Changeset reverted, and I will take extra care in my future edits on this.
NeisBot (2026-01-08 07:04:56+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/13439096764 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:45:26+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363818
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
NeisBot (2026-01-08 07:04:58+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/13439124694 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Spa and massage center in Hoi An"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 08:45:28+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/176971821
lukabułka (2026-01-08 22:48:14+00:00): nie mapuj obszaru drogi jako:
area=yes
highway=service
tylko jako area:highway=service
takie jest poprawne tagowanie
chnuessli (2026-01-08 09:37:04+00:00): Can you please add more detailed information about this node? 24/7 available? Indoor? Access? Description of the location.

All this infos would be nice to have if you are in search for a defi.
JeroenHoek (2026-01-08 08:21:44+00:00): Dit dupliceert de al aanwezige data. Dat is niet de bedoeling. Dat is het principe van één ding, één element:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Zie Leeuwarden voor een voorbeeld waar twee nodes wel nodig zijn omdat de faciliteit en de clubs daar niet hetzelfde zijn. Hier is dat niet het geval (meestal is dat ook niet zo).
rohieb (2026-01-08 07:16:45+00:00): Hatte ich in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102752856 vergessen
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:48:05+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/13437163664 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Zakład opakowań tekturowych w Łomiankach i Warszawie"
---
Na przykład bardziej neutralna i obiektywna wersja Twojego tekstu mogłaby brzmieć: "Zakład opakowań tekturowych w Łomiankach i Warszawie"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 08:45:28+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177363639
b-jazz (2026-03-27 15:54:27+00:00): Here's another request (repeat of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963219) to aim for segments with around 1500 nodes instead of your current 1800-2000 segments. Geofabriks QA tool triggers on anything over 1800 and I feel compelled to come in behind you and clean those up. If you shoot for something like 1500, or even 1750, there will be fewer segments in the multipolygons then when I come through and double the count by splitting 1800s into 900s. Thanks!
PizzaTreeIsland (2026-03-27 16:10:36+00:00): You're right, I really get into the habit of this. Personally, I don't think 1800 is that bad, but I never hit the number exactly when eyeballing the segments, so if I go like 30 over and it triggers the QA tool, that's annoying. I split up the segments in the forest patch I'm currently working on and try to target around 1500 nodes in the future.
BCNorwich (2026-01-08 08:53:47+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I don't think the business would be sited in the middle of a road, that's a bit dangerous for customers. Your website places the business at The Old Chapel, could you please correct the position?

Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:48:08+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/7937765867 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Blinds store with bespoke products and installation service"

#MapWithoutSpam
Reinhard12 (2026-01-12 10:06:38+00:00): Hallo Zolitron,
an dieser Stelle gibt es keine Fußgängerzone "Recklinghäuser Straße", sondern nur die Fuzo "Markt". Bitte lösche diesen way umgehend.
Gruß Reinhard
Reinhard12 (2026-01-12 20:53:16+00:00): Revert durch CS 177154642 (neue Fußgängerzone über einer bestehenden ist sinnlos, außerdem falscher Name)
SomeoneElse (2026-01-11 11:56:47+00:00): Hello,
It looks like the Orange Way got a bit confused as a result of this https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2izw - I've rerouted it around the back of the college again like it was a couple of days ago https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2izv .
Best Regards,
Andy
Rupert Swarbrick (2026-01-11 13:02:24+00:00): Oh drat, I'm sorry for mangling this. Thanks for fixing it again.
silversurfer83 (2026-01-09 09:07:17+00:00): Moin :)

du schreibst "geschlossen" nicht "abgerissen". Warum löscht du den node und die highway=service ? 

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176973698
Cowboy79 (2026-01-09 10:58:00+00:00): Moin,

Abriss hat begonnen, Zuwegung gesperrt. Möglicherweise bleibt eines der beiden Gebäude erhalten samt Waschanlage und Zufahrt, aber das muss man dann zu gegebener Zeit ändern.

MfG
silversurfer83 (2026-01-09 11:05:22+00:00): Alles klar. Danke für die Erläuterung.

Kurze Bemerkung meinerseits:

Ich weiß, dass es teil nervig ist, abgerissene Dinge nicht direkt zu löschen und auch meine Rückfragen an die halbe deutsche Mappercommunity dazu.

Ich habe jedoch schon mehr als einmal beobachtet, dass ein Objekt, weil vor Ort nicht mehr auffindbar, bei OSM gelöscht wurde, und dann wurde es kurze Zeit später wegen des Luftbildes von jemand anderem wieder eingepflegt. Also nix gewonnen.

Daher meine Bitte:

- bessere Kommentare an den Änderungen (siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments)

- Objekte, die auf den Luftbildern im Editor noch klar erkennbar sind per Lebenszyklus Präfix markieren und einen entsprechende note=* am Objekt hinterlassen https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lebenszyklus-Pr%C3%A4fix

Einen guten Start ins Neue Jahr
silversurfer83
Larmax (2026-01-08 19:39:07+00:00): Hei, miksi poistit nuo building:partit?
liljaadeliina (2026-02-02 08:41:06+00:00): Hei, Se oli vahinko / virhe. Voin lisätä ne takaisin, mutta en valitettavasti osaa lisätä niitä poistohistorian kautta (jotta saisin palautettua ne takaisin tarkalleen, miten ne olivat aiemmin).

Jos haluat / tiedät miten se tehdään, niin voit kertoa sen? (Ymmärrän kyllä, jos se ei kiinnosta tms.)
Sakari_N (2026-03-23 19:14:44+00:00): Meinasin palauttaa nuo postetut, mutta ne on ilmeisesti lisätty takaisin muutoksessa https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177969178

Yksi kysymys silti, tässä on ilmeisesti yhdistetty entrance-nodeja? En tunne rakennusta niin en hahmota mitä on muutettu ja miten, mutta ihmetyttää kun nyt näillä entranceilla on tagi door=hinged;no tai door=no;hinged kun ennen oli ilmeisesti yksi entrance jossa oli "hinged" ja toinen jossa oli "no".
Langlaeufer (2026-01-08 08:57:28+00:00): Tempolimits und Fahrspuren werden noch anhand der rückgängig gemachten Änderungen überarbeitet werden.
Ondřej Lopatka (2026-01-08 11:39:56+00:00): Co to je za úpravu a proč je tam tolik smazaných cest?
mavl (2026-01-09 16:04:00+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок добавляет название клиники на здание. Сама клиника уже обозначена на карте. Этот пакет правок отменён.
Sakari_N (2026-01-08 19:16:14+00:00): Moi,

Onko tämä paikka Little Tundra Guesthouse vai Kotimaailma Rooms Little Tundra? Little Tundralla on myös omat verkkosivut (jotka poistit jaa korvasit kotimaailman sivuilla), ja he näyttävät olevan somessa viimeaikoina aktiivinen.
Sakari_N (2026-02-21 20:45:20+00:00): Kumosin nämä muutokset ylläolevan kommenttini perusteella. Vaikka paikan voisi varata kotimaailmasta, ei se nähdäkseni muuta paikan nimeä.
IvanaŠokčević (2026-02-04 22:17:49+00:00): Removed hgv designated tag because it was tagged based on DMAMPO map; fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177561828
SpinOff (2026-01-16 12:49:15+00:00): Niestety zmiana jest niepoprawna. Zachęcam do skorzystania z samouczka na stronie: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:46:04+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 11 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1208829552 v3 | 11 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/11200304187 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176976647
NeisReview (2026-01-17 16:43:43+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177016392
https://osm.org/changeset/177034394
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:46:04+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 10 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/469913790 v16 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/4641730676 v5
https://osm.org/node/4641730669 v5
https://osm.org/node/10902527030 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176976727
frosm (2026-02-26 12:54:21+00:00): bonjour
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1465285091
quel élément pour avoir ajouté un 2ieme cheminement à coté de celui existant ?
la vue aérienne donne l'impression d'un cheminement partagé comme celui qui a à l'est. je n'ai pas trouvé de séparateur physique,
LucasFUB (2026-02-26 13:14:44+00:00): Bonjour, la piste cyclable est très récente (décembre 25/janvier 26) d'où la vue aérienne pas à jour. Cette piste a été créée au niveau de la chaussée en prenant une voie de circulation, côté Nord des arbres. Le trottoir reste donc existant au Sud des arbres. 2 photos au niveau des arbres, 1 autre au niveau de la montée vers le pont : https://postimg.cc/gallery/VzDpjhp
frosm (2026-02-26 13:22:38+00:00): merci. cela gagnerait à etre renseigné directement sur le changeset tant en mot (nouvelle piste, pas encore visible sur l'imagerie sat) qu'en image (on peux rajouter image=* avec les photos)
LucasFUB (2026-02-26 13:25:47+00:00): C'est noté !
frosm (2026-02-26 13:30:43+00:00): merci beaucoup
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-08 13:02:48+00:00): Hallo, 

wenn es nur ein Test war, wird dann das "Test" Attribut auch wieder entfernt?

Danke.
CoffeecatDE (2026-01-08 13:35:53+00:00): Hi, ja mache ich dann wenn der Test durch ist. Danke für den Hinweis.

LG
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-08 13:58:13+00:00): Hallo, danke für die Antwort.
So wie bei den letzten Malen?
CoffeecatDE (2026-01-08 14:03:05+00:00): Ich musste mich erst noch hier einarbeiten, sorry dass es nicht gleich passiert ist.
CoffeecatDE (2026-01-08 14:05:21+00:00): Kannst du mir bitte sagen, wo ich meine erstellten Änderungen einsehen kann? Dann schaffe ich es, die alten Testdaten zu ersetzen.
CoffeecatDE (2026-01-08 14:14:11+00:00): habs jetzt selber gefunden :-)
Rainero (2026-03-22 21:16:25+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180272745
(unzulässige Quelle)
ggs290 (2026-01-08 10:09:49+00:00): Si alguien quiere ayudarme, he adjuntado mis fuentes. El mapa a veces es ligeramente inexacto en cuanto a algunas calles, pero es lo único oficial que he encontrado.
ggs290 (2026-01-08 10:11:15+00:00): Aún faltan muchas paradas por añadir, y luego juntarlas en una relación de ruta de bus. No sé como van las relaciones, nunca he hecho ninguna. Cualquier ayuda es bienvenida.
limes11 (2026-01-08 22:56:37+00:00): Hallo, 

was bedeutet access=customers an dem Spielplatz ? Wessen Kunden dürfen hier drauf ?

Schöne Grüße
mideg (2026-01-09 07:11:36+00:00): Hallo,
nur die Kinder der gegenüberliegenden KiTa. Ob man die jetzt "Kunden" nennen kann...
Jedenfalls ist der Spielplatz nicht öffentlich zugänglich.
VG
limes11 (2026-01-09 12:22:46+00:00): Alles klar! Ich habe es auf private geändert, das wird üblicherweise verwendet, wenn der Spielplatz auf Kita-Gelände ist. Hier ist es ja ähnlich. VG
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:48:10+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/13439446572 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:45:29+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363819
IvanaŠokčević (2026-02-04 22:18:16+00:00): Removed hgv designated tag because it was tagged based on DMAMPO map; fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177564904
woodpeck (2026-01-08 11:11:30+00:00): Dear Oketch Ocheing, is this a data import, or what is the source "Mapbox" supposed to mean? I can see that the buildings you added largely correspond to Bing imagery, but it appears that ESRI imagery might be a much better source for tracing in this area. I wonder what your process was here.
AndyB_66 (2026-01-15 16:29:40+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Dobr%C3%A9_koment%C3%A1%C5%99e_sad_zm%C4%9Bn
AndersAndersson (2026-01-11 12:43:11+00:00): Hej!
Är det verkligen access=no på dessa två vägar?
Saker kan ju ha ändrats, men när jag var där sist var motorfordon förbjudna på den första och på den andra var det tillåtet att åka med motorfordon, men genomfart var förbjuden.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38208729
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1465296316
AndersAndersson (2026-01-20 00:22:52+00:00): Hej igen!
Hur var det med dessa vägar? Får man verkligen inte vistas på dom?
AndersAndersson (2026-03-28 23:53:02+00:00): Inget svar på 3 månader. Eftersom det känns väldigt osannolikt att det är access=no på dessa vägar tar jag bort det.
rarad74 (2026-01-08 11:02:38+00:00): Mizerie  e in creierul tau nu harta asta. Putin respect pentru toti cei care au lucrat pe ea si in special pentru cei care  stiu mai multe decat tine. Inca o abatere si o sa ramai definitiv blocat.
openstreetmapbuddy (2026-01-08 17:09:44+00:00): Scz
eggie (2026-01-08 19:03:35+00:00): Feedback

Alleen te openen met pas of dergelijke.

..motor_vehicle=permit ?

Mvg..
eggie
Ondřej Lopatka (2026-01-08 11:36:56+00:00): Co je tohle za úpravu?
Aethonatic (2026-01-10 16:27:42+00:00): Hello, why did you convert two raceways into a primary and a motorway respectively? These are inappropriate uses of those tags.

I've reverted them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177067955, but I would like to know your reasoning.
GeorgePsarras (2026-01-10 16:34:07+00:00): Hello. I’m a Senior Engineer for HORIBA-Mira and I was tasked to update the OpenStreetMap of our facility to meet the requirements of an internal research project. I understand that the use of the tags might be inconsistent, but it was a requirement of our project, hence the change. Could you please revert the change?
Thanks!
Aethonatic (2026-01-10 16:44:13+00:00): Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Introduction_to_OSM_for_Business_Users.
GeorgePsarras (2026-01-12 12:20:27+00:00): Hi again. Thank you very much for sharing the link. I reviewed it thoroughly and, although I understand your argument, I don't fully agree:
- HORIBA MIRA is a proving ground, which is fundamentally different than  a racetrack. The main difference is the dynamic aspect of the use of our facilities (Speed limits are dynamic, traffic signs are portable, track direction can dynamically change etc.
A racetrack, according to the official wiki definition, is racetrack for motorised racing. The facilities under question are facilities for conducting scenario based vehicle verification. As such, they are set up in a way it reflects this use case (consistent direction of travel, relevant speed limits, Highways England compatible lane markings etc.). At this stage, I believe the definitions of a Motorway ("High capacity highways designed to safely carry fast motor traffic") for No1 and Primary Road ("Major arterial road") for No2 are a better match for our facilities than a Racetrack.
- Please also consider that these facilities are private, no public access is allowed and the activities conducted there are covered by NDAs with our customers, including MoD, VCA and other government agencies. As such, since both definitions of the roads in question are not 100% appropriate and until an investigation to incorporate additional road descriptions that would better describe our facilities, I'm be inclined to revert the changes you made for the time being.
- As I can see you are a very experienced contributor, could you please point me to the process for adding new road features to the Data base?
Thanks!