piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-11 00:06:22+00:00): In addition to the SEO spam changset comment, the business name and unit were tagged on the entire building rather than as a separate node. Additionally, an apparent housenumber and street were included in both addr:street=* and addr:housenumber=* (which were entirely inconsistent with each other) and an otherwise redundant area=yes was tagged on the building while the building=* tag was inexplicably removed.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-11 00:11:43+00:00): Fixed/restored the tags and moved the relevant ones to a POI node in changeset 179663412: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179663412
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-04 18:35:24+00:00): Please don't co-opt another business's node and retag it as yours.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179362996
bxl-forever (2026-03-04 13:33:55+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for your mapping efforts but I need to warn you because there is a problem here.

All the buildings in Belgium are traced on the official footprints provided by the regional governments.  There is no such thing as "correcting the geometry" of a building from aerial imagery.  If you do that, what you are actually doing is that you move good buildings away from their real location.  Despite we have high-quality aerial imagery in Brussels, it is not a suitable source to trace buildings.

I will undo your latest changes in Brussels, when it comes to building geometries.

Thanks in advance and have a nice day.
Икчпук (2026-03-04 15:44:29+00:00): Greetings, bxl-forever!

Yes, I apologize for not noticing your comments and messages right away.

Thank you for letting me know about your unspoken internal mapping rules on OSM! I didn’t intend to do anything bad. I’ll be more careful about making changes in the future.

If you could share any useful links on mapping in your country, I’d be very grateful.

Have a nice day.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179349362
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-04 14:28:47+00:00): Hi Abhishek72728, welcome to OSM.

May we know the reason why you removed the name:ur tag on the railways?

Thanks.
NeisBot (2026-03-04 13:32:53+00:00): Hello Tone00, welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions!

I've taken a look at your recent edits and wanted to discuss a few discrepancies I noticed regarding the surrounding environmental features. Specifically, the locations in your edits don't seem to align with the typical geographical characteristics expected in that area. Here are some (max 10) relevant links to the edits:
https://osm.org/way/1485376519

Could you please take a look?
Looking forward to your response.

#Somewhere
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179349729
tordans (2026-03-04 13:39:18+00:00): https://osmcha.org/changesets/179349765

Ich habe die Rückmeldung bekommen, dass der Friedenthaler Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8771238/history eine Hauptverkehrsstraße und keine Wohnstraße ist. Man kann das in den Luftbildern auch gut nachvollziehen: Die anschließenden hw=residential sehen deutlich anders aus. 
Wiki
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribuierung_von_Stra%C3%9Fen_in_Deutschland#Hauptstra%C3%9Fen
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dresidential
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

Ich lese das Wiki so, dass in diesem Fall "unclassified" die bessere Wahl ist um den Verbindungscharakter des Wegen zu betonen.

Der Straßenstil bleibt gleich bis im Norden https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1210242928 wo wie auf die Landstraße stößt.

Ebenso im Westen https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8771362#map=18/52.756238/13.216781, wo sie auf eine hw=tertiary stößt (als Thaerstraße).

Den anknüpfenden Arm der Luisenstraße  habe ich auch angepasst, da er genauso ausgebaut ist im Luftbild und dann auf eine hw=primary stößt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8771134#map=19/52.751747/13.226017&layers=N

Da die Anschlusspunkte (höhere Straßenklassen) und die Luftbilder + Rückmeldung aus der Verwaltung alle zusammen passten, habe ich die Änderung direkt durchgeführt. Schreibt gerne, wenn ihr etwas anders seht…
ZhannaB (2026-03-04 13:46:11+00:00): I'm sorry. There is an misspell im my comment. "(10m scale)" is a correct one.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179350143
eggie (2026-03-04 18:52:51+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
puchaczowsky (2026-03-06 21:46:20+00:00): droga jest nadal zamknięta
gscholz (2026-03-10 07:01:18+00:00): Hi Mattia Vitturi,
this changeset has left behind a damaged relation for "Laguna di Venezia":

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=12.31577&lat=45.34891&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3049430/history#map=11/45.3645/12.3342

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Stalker61 (2026-03-05 16:33:00+00:00): Не надо обычный дворовый проезд включать в улицу Островского. До строительства здания Арбитражного суда эта улица проходила до перекрестка с улицами Мира и Крупской. Я двадцать лет там ножками пробегал по дворам :) Никакого генплана не надо.
osmviborg (2026-03-04 14:55:24+00:00): Man tagger ikke en nod med ''building'
osmviborg (2026-03-04 14:55:34+00:00): node
osmviborg (2026-03-04 14:53:18+00:00): Hvodan ser skiltet ud, firkantet og hvid på blå baggrund ellet det runde røde?
Bloch1234 (2026-03-04 14:59:39+00:00): Det er firkantet blåt zone skilt, så det må være en anbefaling.
osmviborg (2026-03-04 15:14:40+00:00): maxspeed:advisory=30
Bloch1234 (2026-03-04 15:25:43+00:00): Tak for hjælpen
NeisBot (2026-03-04 14:36:39+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 10 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/994106990 v2 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/4538703052 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179352500
NeisReview (2026-03-12 17:33:24+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179386738
NeisBot (2026-03-04 14:42:42+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/13522439163 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-12 17:33:08+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179769008
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
NeisBot (2026-03-04 14:51:39+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 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/732563160 v4 | 7 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179353156
007Transformer (2026-03-05 07:00:00+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179381198
Fan map 2 (2026-03-04 17:45:05+00:00): Błędnie oznaczono ślepe torowisko bez kontynuacji wzdłuż Legionów jako czynne.

Wątpliwe jest również tworzenie relacji aby spiąć kilka budynków w jeden adres. Kilka budynków wchodzących w skład posesji nie oznacza, że wszystkie mają nadany adres.
Langlaeufer (2026-03-04 17:17:27+00:00): Bin mit dem Tagging so nicht einfverstanden. Neben dem Geländer ist ein abgesenkter Bordstein. Queren ist hier nicht verboten (crossing=no somit falsch). An der anderen Stelle 30 m neben der Fußgängerampel ist hingegen kein  offizieller Übergang sondern lediglich eine befestigte Stelle wegen irgendwelcher Wasserschieber. Queren dürfte hier wegen der Nähe zur Ampel nicht vorgesehen sein.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179353530
tordans (2026-03-04 18:45:51+00:00): Zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13389408120/history

Ich finde beide Stories passen nicht perfekt. 

crossing=informal braucht IMO ein signal, dass hier gekreuzt wird, wie bspw. die Treppen-Situation mit der Einfahrt auf der Gegenseite die in der um die Ecke von der Stelle sind.
Das sehe ich an dieser dreispurigen Straße nicht. Das Beispiel im Wiki zeigt bpsw. den Trampelpfad 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing=informal

crossing=no ist im Wiki nicht rein für "nicht erlaubt" hinterlegt, sondern "nicht angebracht, möglich oder zulässig". Nicht angebracht finde ich hier sehr passend.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:crossing%3Dno

Von mir aus kann es hier informal bleiben, aber ich finde "no" ebenso bzw. besser geeignet.

---

Ich tue mich schwer mit den Verbindungslinien. 
Einmal das Tagging: Man kann diese Linie nur typologisch von einem Weg unterscheiden. Sie braucht IMO crossing-tagging. Oder wir lassen die Linie ganz weg, weil ja eh kein "highway" tag am "crossing" ist; dann steht die node unabhängig von den Gehwegen für sich
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1485434387/history 
Wenn es dir darum geht den Bordstein abzubilden, können wir den auch als Linien-Geometrie erfassen…

Wenn die Linie bleiben "muss", sollten wir ein bessere Tagging suchen das "crossing" ausdrückt und es in beide Seiten verlängern.

Dito zum Tagging bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1485434386/history
Langlaeufer (2026-03-04 19:56:15+00:00): in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing steht das "nicht angebracht" nicht. Ich hab jetzt aber auch keine Lust zur recherchieren, wer wann was wo einfach so reingeschrieben hat. Bzlg. Linien würde ich das einfach so lassen wie es jetzt ist. Bzgl. Punkt machen die Crossings ohne Fußweganschluss keinen Sinn - sind nicht navigierbar. Interessant wäre wie die Kreuzung praktisch tatsächlich gequert wird. Ich glaube aber die L211 Richtung Summt ist garnicht so stark befahren, ich habe mehr den Eindruck die meisten Autos biegen von der Bahn kommend in die Friedrich-Wolf-Straße ein und umgekehrt.
Langlaeufer (2026-03-04 20:00:44+00:00): Habs dann doch nachgeschaut https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:crossing%3Dno&diff=next&oldid=2029808
AndyB_66 (2026-03-04 17:26:30+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
NeisBot (2026-03-04 15:09:40+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 82 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/90071670 v19 | 23 crossings
https://osm.org/way/752108076 v4 | 23 crossings
https://osm.org/way/390407258 v2 | 19 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/10670032799 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179353915
NeisRevert (2026-03-04 15:51:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179356146
where the comment is: "Revert of unintended geometry change"
Sanniu (2026-03-18 07:57:27+00:00): Hi, is it some test?
This is common map, not local playground, please revert these changes.
007Transformer (2026-03-05 05:54:26+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id 179379371
Timmy_Tesseract (2026-03-05 04:55:35+00:00): Good afternoon and welcome back!

Just some small reminders about tagging conventions:

- To map who or what a streets is named after please use name:etymology:wikidata/wikipedia. Only use wikidata/wikipedia on streets if the the streets itself has a wikidata object and wikipedia article (see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:etymology)

- The main name tag should contain the name variant that is most commonly used on signage, for addresses and so on. Very long forms of a name that are only rarely used in everyday life are better suited for official_name tag

- Highway=unclassified despite its name is a a classification that is widely used for roads that are more important than residential streets but not important enough for tertiary classification (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Classifications)

Thanks for continuing to help improving OSM
pkoby (2026-03-04 17:11:03+00:00): Is this not private?
I-76 (2026-03-04 17:22:30+00:00): If I zoom in fast it's easier to locate my house by seeing this, and it doesn't show at lower zooms as private. If this is of major concern to you, feel free to change it.
kuhni74 (2026-03-04 18:03:33+00:00): vielen Dank - ich hatte mich mit der genauen Lage der Ladestation tatsächlich geirrt, weil das eine große Gebäude auch weg ist
OSM_RogerWilco (2026-03-06 11:01:57+00:00): Moin!
Bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass dieser Übergang auch crossing:markings=surface ist: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8415039991/

Nur anhand von Bing-Bildern diese Daten einzutragen, halte ich nicht für richtig!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-04 04:20:23+00:00): Use correct top-level tags for SEO spam POI Dr. Yolanda Parales in changeset 183622103

https://osm.org/changeset/183622103
Wildsharky (2026-03-06 04:03:46+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 179383157
ToniE (2026-03-04 17:17:46+00:00): Servus DATATPROTECT,

und willkommen bei OSM.

Drei kleine Fehler/Probleme möchte ich hier anmerken:

#1: die Firma DATAPROTECT scheint in der 2. Etage zu sein, das Gebäude (Way 87406577) (#44)  hat aber wohl 6 Stockwerke. Daraus schließe ich, dass in dem Gebäude noch andere Parteien sind. 
In OSM werden Firmen in solchen Fällen nicht an das Gebäude gemapped, sonder als eigenständigen Punkt (Punkt 13618121884), was bereits geschehen ist. Womit, Problem #2, "DATAPROTECT" im Gebäude #44 zwei mal existiert.

Vorschlag #3: office=it statt office=company.

'company' ist ein allgemeiner Sammelbegriff für den Fall, dass nicht ganz klar ist, in welche Kategorie die Firma bei OSM fällt.

VG
Toni

Hier scheint office=it aber wohl sehr gut zu passen.
olo81 (2026-04-04 14:15:33+00:00): Ta budowa się nie rozpoczęła, a ty piszesz o wstrzymaniu.  To jest co najwyżej miejsce pod inwestycje. Do wywalenia. 
I teraz pytanie ile takich nierozpoczętych budów oznaczyłeś? Które wiszą latami na osm. Ja już kilka wywaliłem.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-05-25 07:57:38+00:00): @C2oc4

Czy na https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1463062550 kiedykolwiek była budowa?
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-05-25 07:58:57+00:00): source=geoporetal więc sprawdzę z geoportalem, jak nie ma tam budowy to skasuję jako kłamstwo
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-05-25 08:23:11+00:00): skasowałem jako fikcyjne

jakie są jeszcze fikcyjne budowy w okolicy?
C2oc4 (2026-07-11 06:47:31+00:00): Nie fikcyjne, informacja która była dostepna np na facebook itp :) 
https://bedzin.naszemiasto.pl/strazacy-z-bedzina-beda-miec-nowoczesna-straznice-nowa-siedziba-komendy-i-jednostki-ratowniczo-gasniczej-ma-kosztowac-ok-47-milionow-zl/ar/c1p2-29150021
olo81 (2026-07-11 07:03:51+00:00): To że coś ma być nie znaczy że budowa jest rozpoczęta. Dodajemy to co jest w budowie.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-11 09:21:09+00:00): +1, to że obiecano budowę nie oznacza że się ona rozpoczęła

czy są w okolicy jakieś obszary zmapowane jako trwające budowy, gdzie na razie są tylko obietnice na FB?
dzamper (2026-07-13 18:06:35+00:00): Jak budowa ma zacząć się na świętego Nigdy, to od biedy zamiast kasowania można landuse=greenfield zastosować

Teraz się pojawiło ponownie, nie wiem czy poprawnie
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185557114
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537547871
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-13 21:04:23+00:00): wycofuje, znowu ten nieogar dodał budowę - z "Ogłoszono przetarg na projekt" jako źródło

ratunku
NeisBot (2026-03-04 16:03:43+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/13618132427 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-12 17:33:09+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179769011
(No visible changes after review v1)
Fraxi (2026-03-04 20:38:23+00:00): Здравейте! 
Благодаря за редакциите!
По принцип на wiki.openstreetmap.org можете да се запознаете със стандартите и практиките, приети за картографиране в OSM. По тази промяна:
- не целият полигон https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421126930/ е необходимо да бъде маркиран като една сграда. Защото западната част всъщност е покрив. Обозначава се с building=roof и съответно layer=1, тъй като отдолу минава алеята за колите, които зареждат. Може целия полигон да се раздели на части, тъй и като в източната част е касата и там е и магазин(Viva, както се вижда и от Bing Streetside изображение).  Ключът за адреса е добре да бъде променен от addr:street на addr:place, тъй като става дума за пл. Албена. Ето тук можете да видите повече как в България процедираме в такива случаи - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bg:WikiProject_Bulgaria#%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B8
Всъщност, тези данни са останали от предишни потребители.
Fraxi (2026-03-04 21:14:32+00:00): Направих някои промени - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179369208. Изчакайте няколко минути и после може да натиснете ctrl+F5, за да видите как са се обновили данните. Но не съм сигурен дали https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421126933/ и продължението му са правилно начертани. После можете да видите(като приближавате и кликвате с мишката) по-подробно какво съм променил на https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=179369208
Fraxi (2026-03-04 21:18:43+00:00): Коригирах и форматирането на работното време на JYSK. Можете да видите повече на https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening%20hours
ScarecrowBG (2026-03-05 08:47:34+00:00): Благодаря за помощта и ресурсите. Ще се разчета.
mueschel (2026-03-10 14:32:47+00:00): Hi,
"parking:both:on_kerb =no" is not a common tag - according to your comment it should be 
"parking:both=lane" should be correct.
Rowland (2026-03-10 20:09:47+00:00): parking=lane seemed wrong, ad there is no space for on street parking either; and whilst that is prohibited by land charges on the property owners, it's not disallowed through a marked restriction.
mueschel (2026-03-10 20:22:17+00:00): If there is no allowed parking, it should be parking:both=no.
You can add a reason why it's not possible in  parking:both:reason
Rowland (2026-03-10 20:24:46+00:00): It's only the verge parking that's verifiable on street though - maybe the answer is to take it off entirely, and let people refer to local signage
NeisBot (2026-03-04 16:24:42+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/13456695136 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-12 17:33:10+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179769012
(Restore previous tags)

 If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
NeisBot (2026-03-04 16:33:40+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 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1437129915 v1 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1437129582 v1 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/5406082689 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179358106
bartgron (2026-03-04 18:21:07+00:00): Z powodu licznych błędów zestaw zmian został wycofany.
Pozdrawiam
NeisBot (2026-03-04 16:39:42+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/13474944296 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-12 17:33:11+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179769013
(Restore previous tags)

 If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
NeisBot (2026-03-04 16:42:46+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/13618240924 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Rivière des Hautes Alpes"
---
Par exemple, une version plus neutre et factuelle de ton texte pourrait être : « Rivière des Hautes Alpes »
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-12 17:33:12+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179769015
(No visible changes after review v1)