piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2026-04-19 13:55:48+00:00): Hello,
You've updated the population here with a source of https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/wales/W06000023__powys/ .  Under what licence was that data made available to you?  The site you link merely says "© Thomas Brinkhoff" which of course would not be compatible with OSM without an explicit waiver.  
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG) again.
RR80 (2026-04-21 18:13:06+00:00): Jesus effing christ. An 'explicit waiver'. How exactly are we obtaining that? So even providing a source isn't enough for you? How ridiculous.
SomeoneElse (2026-04-21 18:33:18+00:00): You can't just use something as a source that you "found on the Internet".  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright etc.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-22 21:52:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170
Stalker61 (2026-04-18 06:43:58+00:00): Здравствуйте. Не надоело еще тягать ноды без учета смещения снимка подложки?
NeisBot (2026-04-17 17:42:40+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 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/616207063 v27 | 9 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181470064
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-22 21:52:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170
pitscheplatsch (2026-04-17 19:28:12+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181470895
LordGarySugar (2026-04-19 01:06:03+00:00): Hi, I see you've been changing lots of towns to villages and vice-versa, can I ask what the source for these designations are? Some of these settlements are very small with less than 1,500 population, far less than what would be expected from a town.
RR80 (2026-04-21 18:27:11+00:00): If a settlement has a 'town charter' which Llandysul and the others have. Then it is a town. Town status has nothing to do with population.
ceirios (2026-04-21 19:24:50+00:00): Do you have a source for that? I just tried to find a town charter for Llandysul and couldn't find anything.
LordGarySugar (2026-04-21 19:25:43+00:00): Do you have a source for Llandysul having a 'town charter'? I've never heard of this concept personally. If you're going around changing all these villages to towns, you should provide the source you've used to classify them all as such.
ceirios (2026-04-19 01:03:55+00:00): Hi there,

You've changed the place=* tag from town to village here - do you have a source for this classification?

Cofion
Ceirios
fluffycupcakes (2026-04-18 15:28:26+00:00): Hello. In your changeset you tagged the amenity=ice_cream that I have added as disused. However, I have surveyed it just a few days ago and saw it function normally, serving ice cream to people.
fluffycupcakes (2026-04-18 15:29:06+00:00): Here is the node in question:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13732984135/history#map=19/37.090417/-8.180078
seichter (2026-04-18 15:58:01+00:00): I have been there on March 28th. The restaurant was damaged by storm. I have not been at the rear side, I just supposed all facilities within the building to be out of order, too.
I have removed the disused-tagging and added a check_date to the restaurant. I think it will be restored at high priority, since it is the beach restaurant for the Cliff Bay Resort.
seichter (2026-04-18 20:43:02+00:00): Correction: Pine Cliff Resort
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2026-05-24 21:00:40+00:00): Hi, I was reverting older changes nearby and path between Vesivärava and Torupilli Selver was affected. I've checked Mapillary and in 2024 there are signs of bicycle-pedestrian path start and end. If that's not the case anymore and they were removed feel free to change back.
Zverik (2026-05-24 21:31:21+00:00): Wtf. All my changes related to bicycle roads were made after in-person survey. Please do not assume otherwise. You can find my notes at https://geoscribble.osmz.ru/map#17/59.42961/24.77701 — displayed are only those that were made under two months ago.
Zverik (2026-05-24 21:32:19+00:00): I will change back, thanks for informing. I read that incorrectly as you reverting my changeset, sorry for being harsh.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2026-05-25 12:33:36+00:00): I've asked my friend to survey. Seems like bicycles are designated.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10UB7Ax5-zl38S1bf8rN8CvHXJNPaBCeK/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KZnEmtegy9ERpFLxOZzQpIRs0dc5RmxG/view?usp=sharing
Zverik (2026-05-25 13:00:11+00:00): It's just painted lines. Nobody there keeps to the correct side. Paint is not infrastructure. I mark segregated cycleways when there is something more substantial, like kerbs along the Türnpu tn. In this case, it's practically shared.

Although I'm not married to this segment and can bear having it marked as a segregated cycleway :)
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2026-05-25 17:29:41+00:00): I was more concerned about it being a highway=footway. 

But now that you mention it, it is segregated, no doubt about it. Truly physical segregation would allow to map it as two paths. 

Of course, dark red asphalt for bicycles or cobblestone in the middle would help a bit, but this is another matter. Partially cultural.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-22 21:52:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170
eggie (2026-04-17 20:10:37+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
MassCartog (2026-04-17 18:48:08+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. Features not being Public locations is an invalid reason to remove them. Please do not remove feature that exist on the ground, instead use OSM access tagging system if they are closed to the public. Thanks
ChrissW-R1 (2026-04-17 18:38:00+00:00): See https://osm.org/note/5228278
t_ja (2026-04-17 19:07:57+00:00): Ahoj,
aky je dovod davat maxspeed=90 na cesty v obci Rudinka? Je tam povolena maximalne 50-tka a urcite na kazdej ten ulici nie je znackou povolena vyssia rychlost.

Prosim oprav si to po sebe, lebo toto je kandidat na revert...
MassCartog (2026-04-17 18:49:20+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

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

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-22 21:52:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-22 21:52:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170
Dimitar155 (2026-04-17 19:55:58+00:00): Здравей Петър,

Благодаря за промяната! Не е желателно да се изтриват закрити обекти, тъй като е доста вероятно в близкото бъдеще да се появи нещо ново на същото място. По-добре би било да се отбележи като вакантен (shop=vacant) или като наскоро затворен (disused:amenity=bank).

Поздрави,
Митко
Fraxi (2026-04-28 14:09:06+00:00): Върната промяната и отбелязан като вакантен обект.
HellMap (2026-04-18 10:23:36+00:00): Please fix all the incorrect fords you created.

Why is this ditch layer=1 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1423368955 ?
MassCartog (2026-04-17 19:17:08+00:00): Hello again, this is now the 4th warning. Do not change the feature type of objects to incorrect feature types. Also, all the tags on this building are correct and valid. You are now moving into the realm of Vandalism of OSM data. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
ftrebien (2026-07-22 01:09:35+00:00): Qual a fonte dessa área de proteção ambiental?
ftrebien (2026-07-22 02:20:03+00:00): Ela não consta no mapa oficial: https://iema.es.gov.br/unidades-de-conservacao
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181473421
rempshaener (2026-04-18 19:46:12+00:00): Hallo,

ich habe folgende Anmerkungen zu deinen Bearbeitungen:
- Kupplungen bei Überflurhydranten:
Die Angabe couplings=2xB;1xA passt nicht ganz. Das wird wie folgt angegeben:
couplings=3
couplings:diameters=A;B;B

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13738367538
Wasserentnahmestellen haben keinen Namen, bitte löschen.
Die Kombination
emergency=water_tank
natural=water
water=reservoir
an einem Punkt ergibt keinen Sinn. Um was handelt es sich hier?

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13738367539
Bitte den Namen entfernen.
water=reservoir ist in der Regel ein Speicherbecken mit Damm.
Das kann nicht an einem Punkt erfasst werden.
Das hier sieht eher nach einem Löschwasserteich aus.
Dafür erfasst man die Fläche und ergänzt
natural=water
water=pond
emergency=fire_water_pond

Bei Fragen bitte melden.

Viele Grüße
felipeeugenio (2026-04-17 19:48:21+00:00): Hola. Buenas tardes.
Borró el edificio. Ya no existe?

Chef urbano es un restaurant que usa la misma edificación?

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181473475
eggie (2026-04-17 21:53:17+00:00): Hoi,

Hier zijn nu wel duplicated ways.
Ik los het wel eens op met 
highway=residential  (met footway werkt het volgens mij ook)
icm area=yes
Dan krijg je een zichtbaar vlak.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-04-17 21:56:42+00:00): Wat jij gebruikt is iets dergelijks om de breedte van de weg aan te geven als vlak. Dat kan ook, maar zie je niet op de kaart.
molensteen (2026-04-19 10:03:26+00:00): dank eggie, ik heb het gepoogd op te lossen
eggie (2026-04-19 10:06:22+00:00): Oke.. het rendert nu als verhard vlak.
ceirios (2026-04-19 01:25:37+00:00): Hello again,

Is your source on this reliable?
I live locally and I really don't think 1000 people have left Burry Port within the last 15 years!

The previous number (6156) also doesn't show up in the link you added as a "source"

also, the numbers you're adding are population ESTIMATES - they are not official figures

What's going on here?

Diolch
Ceirios
RR80 (2026-04-21 18:24:47+00:00): Of course the previous number doesn't come up in my source, why should it have? I don't know where that came from but its probably wrong?

So what if they are estimates? Are we meant to go out and count people ourselves?
ceirios (2026-04-21 19:11:13+00:00): I just don't think the changes you're making here make any sense unfortunately. That website also doesn't cite any sources as far as I can tell.

If 1000 people had left Burry Port, surely I would've heard about it!
NeisBot (2026-04-17 19:39:48+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13738402601 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
MapperrZPolski (2026-04-17 19:42:55+00:00): https://www.skyscrapercity.com/attachments/1594404156790-png.288472/?auto=webp&fit=bounds&format=pjgp&height=1920&optimize=high&width=1920

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/dk77-dw723-sandomierz-most-na-wi%C5%9Ble-i-ul-lwowska-bis.669910/page-24
rempshaener (2026-04-18 19:33:12+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
In die Nennweite kommt nur der Wert in mm, ohne das „H“
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
NeisBot (2026-04-17 19:45:44+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/13699840621 v5

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisAgent (2026-04-17 22:34:09+00:00): 🕵 It looks like you reintroduced text that was previously flagged as promotional and removed after a review. Could you please explain why it was added again?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-01 10:41:32+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset 184906777

https://osm.org/changeset/184906777
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-22 21:52:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170
eggie (2026-04-17 20:20:22+00:00): Dag MapBtch  Vaak kun je beter om een nieuw import vragen als er is ingemeten.
Een blok opdelen heeft weinig zin, want bij herimport id de oude vorm weer terug.
In editor iD zit ook een achtergrond van de BGT om e.e.a.  uit te lijnen. 

(her)Import vraag je aan in dit draadje.. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bag-importverzoeken/3394/4417

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-04-17 20:35:57+00:00): Dat grote blok wat je hebt verwijderd is een ondergrondse parkeergarage. 
De BGT gaat dan wat wonderlijk om in de ogen van de mapper omdat die graag wil zien wat je van boven ziet.
Ik heb verder wat uitgelijnd. Een herimport was ook mogelijk geweest na inmeting.
eggie (2026-04-17 20:39:10+00:00): Het grote blok met de BAG gegevens heb ik teruggezet als building:part
Dat was overigens ook nog niet goed ingemeten.
eggie (2026-04-17 20:49:13+00:00): Dat alles tegenwoordig met een bot in de gaten wordt gehouden zie je hier.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181475447#map=19/52.083082/5.068820
Ik had de landuse=residential alleen maar aangepast aan het nieuwe wijkje. :)
Dat wordt dan direct als schade veroorzaken gezien.
MapBtch (2026-04-18 09:07:48+00:00): Ah tnx - ik snap het  - die parkeergarage is een ondergronds gebouw en de woning staan daar bovenop. Maar blijkbaar worden de woningen dan gezien als onderdeel van het hele gebouw.   Verwarrend in dit geval omdat er twee losstaande rijtjes met een tussendoorgang op de ondergronde parkeerplaats staan.  Door het als geheel te zien, wordt die doorgang niet meer zichtbaar.  Maar is geen ramp natuurlijk.
eggie (2026-04-18 09:15:09+00:00): Yep.. daarom maakt ik van die ondergrondse garage vaak een building:part=   Niet echt consensus over.
De gebouwen teken ik dat in zoals jij het hebt gedaan.
Herïmport heeft dus geen zin.
eggie (2026-04-17 20:12:12+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
Znaika (2026-04-19 11:54:57+00:00): Hi, ist es kein Duplikat, wenn die Adresse beim Haus eingetragen ist?
rempshaener (2026-04-19 12:26:12+00:00): Stimmt, danke!
Korrigiert.
whammo (2026-04-19 00:47:41+00:00): Hey Matt, thanks for all your contributions. FYI that moving an object so that the name renders is considered tagging for the renderer and is generally discouraged.
iandees (2026-04-17 20:35:30+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45168233 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181475605, so no harm done!

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

Happy mapping!
eggie (2026-04-17 20:41:16+00:00): Hi,

No that was on purpose. I reshaped the landuse=residential in two changesets.

Please don't revert.
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2026-04-17 20:45:23+00:00): Please don't undo my edits..

Its a new quarter and I reshaped the landuse=residential. I'm not happy with your fix.
I reshaped the landuse residential again. 
It's correct now. 
Greetz,
eggie
iandees (2026-04-17 21:05:12+00:00): Sorry about that. I used a changeset viewer like https://osmcha.org/changesets/181475447 to look at your change and I saw that the new landuse shape extends over buildings and pedestrian areas. This is why I moved the node back to align with the road. I encourage you to group changes to related objects into one changeset so the data isn't broken between.
eggie (2026-04-17 21:15:25+00:00): Hi,
No problem. I used josm and my area was not large enough to finish the job. I had to connect the landuse residential with the landuse =industrial. So I needed a larger area. That was one minute later.
I'm curious... is this a bot or a map roulette to discover dragged nodes? 

Greetz,
eggie
iandees (2026-04-17 21:24:11+00:00): The edits are flagged to me by a bot. Code is here: https://github.com/iandees/node-drag-watcher/blob/main/checkers/drag.py.

I review all the changes, so I feel especially bad when I mess it up.

I was going to add a check to skip JOSM edits (since it's usually web-based editors doing this), but I found a couple accidental node drags from JOSM earlier this week.
eggie (2026-04-17 21:25:47+00:00): Don't worry....  Keep up the good work!
JakovBušić (2026-04-20 18:53:56+00:00): Road that was split unnecessary in this changeset has been merged back together in changeset 181597682. #OptimoRoute
iandees (2026-04-17 20:45:36+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8518301402 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181475936, so no harm done!

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

Happy mapping!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-01 00:53:28+00:00): Reverted SEO spammer incorrectly merging separate bus stop and bus station POIs for SAIS bus office, breaking PT tagging

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183472776
MSiebenhaar (2026-04-17 20:47:44+00:00): Nachtrag Changeset Kommentar:
Gaiganz: Hausdetails entlang Hauptstraße, Name Hans-Wölfel-Straße, Beleuchtung, Obeflächen und Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen
NorthCrab_upload (2026-04-20 00:25:46+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3876025583
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/911968112

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Zwyklak (2026-06-11 21:07:18+00:00): poprawione
eggie (2026-04-17 21:03:25+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
eggie (2026-04-17 21:06:05+00:00): Kun je hier werkelijk met een motorvoertuig rijden van de Kuipersstraat naar de Rustenburgerstraat?
eggie (2026-04-17 21:09:43+00:00): Het is een inrit (incline=down )en geen doorlopende weg.
eggie (2026-04-17 21:09:49+00:00): aangepast
eggie (2026-04-17 21:24:01+00:00): Je voetpad was geplakt op een residential. We noemen dat duplicated way. Ik heb het voetpad verwijderd.
Je zult het bestaande wegdeel zelf moeten aanpassen.
MVG
eggie
pablopablopablo_ (2026-04-19 20:49:51+00:00): Hey! Thanks for the feedback. Yes, you can drive a car from kuipstraat to rustenburgerstraat (I live around there, that's why I know). I don't know how to edit it myself, but will look these days.
eggie (2026-04-19 21:16:15+00:00): Hi.. If I look at the PDOK imagery I see a slope incline down. 
https://www.verbeterdekaart.nl/#?geometry.x=121853.73&geometry.y=485119.62&zoomlevel=15.28
So no drivetrough at this very spot.
Look at the BGT above.

Perhaps you mean an other street. 
Greetz,
eggie
yzuio (2026-04-21 12:09:24+00:00): 👋plz dont add a single way into super realtions(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10235190)
onterof (2026-05-20 16:26:00+00:00): Hi, danke für die Korrekturen, hab's erst jetzt gesehen :)
Ein paar ähnliche Cluster davon gibt's noch (u.a. Landau, südwestlich von Pirmasens, Oberbarnbach, Tiefenstein und Dickesbach). Grüße
DFW-Backyard7 (2026-04-18 05:26:21+00:00): Hello! I've noticed that you've added duplicates of The Lot TX 3 or 4 times. ICT_maps fixed it for you, but try to make sure you're fetching updated map data before assuming an edit didn't go through and trying again. If that wasn't the case, could you explain what you are trying to fix?

Also, minor thing, but try to format phone numbers as +1-123-456-7890
bwbuz (2026-07-29 12:05:14+00:00): Was soll dieser Unfug, Ackerzufahrten als Kreisstraßen zu mappen??? Bitte das künftig unterlassen und es als Zufahrt/Auffahrt mappen.
Matt McCutchen (2026-04-17 21:09:29+00:00): The row of bollards in the median has been shortened so it no longer blocks any turns, but one of the two previously blocked turns is now prohibited by a sign.  Based on the documentation I found, I was unsure whether it's better to map the shortened row of bollards or map the road as undivided again to simplify the data since the bollards make no practical difference as far as I can tell.  I went with the second approach but have no objection to other mappers switching to the first.  So this changeset is mostly equivalent to a revert of https://osm.org/changeset/174737617 followed by the addition of the turn restriction.
Matt McCutchen (2026-06-11 23:51:42+00:00): For the record: all of the bollards are now gone, so there is no longer a question of mapping them.
eggie (2026-04-17 21:17:59+00:00): Hi,
Please don't use name= to describe a subject.
So we don't use name=bankje name=huis
name=windsock
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2026-04-17 21:19:19+00:00): Two windsocks here?