piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:05:14+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/13470943710 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-07 07:48:43+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178216941
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:05:15+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/13479766355 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-07 07:48:44+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177952746
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:05:16+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/13471034771 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-07 07:48:44+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178216943
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:05:18+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/13471386157 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Johnny's Lounge"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-07 07:48:46+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178216946
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
eggie (2026-01-28 22:35:11+00:00): Dag 73  De info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode. Openingstijden aangepast.

MVG
eggie
MxxCon (2026-01-29 21:22:39+00:00): Hello.
Is this actually real "Flock" brand camera or some other brand and you used flock as a generic meaning?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177824002
MxxCon (2026-01-29 21:22:50+00:00): Hello.
Is this actually real "Flock" brand camera or some other brand and you used flock as a generic meaning?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177824107
Taya_S (2026-01-29 05:41:55+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177831284
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:05:19+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/13316716902 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-07 07:48:47+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178216947
(No visible changes after review)
Jan Olieslagers (2026-04-22 16:18:36+00:00): This Aerodromo de Salceda, is it still active? It does not look like that, on satellite imagery.
Arturo Francisco Barbero (2026-04-24 11:23:21+00:00): aparentemente está en estado de semiabandono y reservado para emergencias como incendios forestales
Jan Olieslagers (2026-04-24 11:59:49+00:00): Obrigado :) !
Taya_S (2026-01-29 05:41:56+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177831284
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:05:20+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/13471612342 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-07 07:48:47+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178216949
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-01-28 23:06:12+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 (4 changesets) shows that 353 of your last 353 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=23763933
PRIVACYISONE (2026-01-28 23:09:49+00:00): They are intentional.
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:05:22+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/13507190220 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-07 07:48:47+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178216951
(No visible changes after review)
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-27 11:11:41+00:00): Cleaned up mistagging for Lucid Private Offices POI in changeset 184688260

https://osm.org/changeset/184688260
nevw (2026-01-29 03:17:10+00:00): Hi Florence, this was reverted by me due to it breaking the main highway.
I have edited the area and deleted the section of road that passes through the private property that is not to be used as as an access to the highway. I also added a 'no exit' tag at the end of View road and at the stub of road on the highway with a gate.
Once this propagates though the navigation apps there will be no routing through the property from osm data.
Florence Guillet (2026-01-29 22:45:32+00:00): Good morning, I did more exploring of OSM and it still shows View Road, on the "Cycle Map" tab as going through. As does the "CyclOSM" & "Transport Map" tabs. can you have all the changes for a no through road apply to all tabs and any other GIS database? thank you. Flo
nevw (2026-01-29 23:19:38+00:00): These are versions of maps using the osm database data and their developers have varying update cycles for the maps. I expect the ones you listed will update within about a week but there are some using osm data that update very infrequently. You may need to fresh your screen to make the computer load and display the latest version.
nevw (2026-01-29 23:39:06+00:00): osm website also has a link next to the search box (icon with arrows) that shows how these navigation apps are routing through the area. Just drag the green and red icons to where you want to start and finish. These are yet to update but should be ok in a few days too.
The navigation apps also have individual update schedules.
rempshaener (2026-01-29 18:54:30+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Zwei Anmerkungen:
- Du hattest einen Punkt so verschoben, dass ein Weg quer durch einige Gebäude führte. Das habe ich mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177861662 bereits angepasst.
- Hydranten sollten nicht mit Straßen, Gebäuden u. ä. verbunden werden. Das lässt sich leicht beheben: im Editor markieren und „E“ drücken – das löst den Hydranten von der Linie. 
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
stany1337 (2026-02-02 14:06:27+00:00): Dla trzech odcinków S8 nabliżej wrocławia zostałą wydana decyzja ZRID:
https://s8-jordanow-lagiewniki.gddkia.gov.pl/wojewoda-dolnoslaska-wydala-decyzje-o-zezwoleniu-na-realizacje-inwestycji-drogowej-zrid/

https://s8-kobierzyce-jordanow.gddkia.gov.pl/wojewoda-dolnoslaska-wydala-decyzje-o-zezwoleniu-na-realizacje-inwestycji-drogowej-zrid/

https://s8-wroclaw-kobierzyce.gddkia.gov.pl/wojewoda-dolnoslaski-wydal-decyzje-o-zezwoleniu-na-realizacje-inwestycji-drogowej-zrid/

Możesz już zakończyć swoją durną kampanię zmian.
pwbriggs (2026-01-29 19:35:36+00:00): Looks good, thanks for the contribution! Address data is pretty sparse in this area, so feel free to add addresses as needed. I'll look into pulling some data from any publicly-licensed county address data to see if I can get some of these in bulk.

Thanks again, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Udarian (2026-01-29 00:42:17+00:00): a few questions, first along its run South Dixie Highway is tagged unsigned_ref=SR 5 so I think changing that would would require larger conversations, at minimum in the local-florida channel on the OSMUS slack but ideally with the larger US community as there is likely a good reason for the existing tagging. Second, from my understanding South Dixie Highway is not an expressway so tagging as one is incorrect. Third, why did you remove parts of HEFT where it meets with South Dixie Highway from the HEFT relation?

Happy mapping,
Udar
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-29 03:03:42+00:00): 1. All I did was change unsigned_ref=SR_5 to unsigned_ref=FL_5.
2. The portion between 344th Street and 7th Street has grade-separated interchanges with HEFT. Since that portion has no other at-grade intersections (except for the Baymont hotel), I interpreted these two facts (combined with the fact that this is a trunk road, is divided, and is at the end of a freeway) as tagging that portion with expressway=yes and access_control=partial.
3. I only removed the portions I tagged as highway=motorway_link, such that the freeway would begin at the convergence of the two on-ramps, rather than starting it at US 1.
Udarian (2026-01-29 03:32:05+00:00): South Dixie Highway is a long road, saying that it is an expressway is incorrect. I may understand if US 1 was dual carriageway for the area around the ramps for HEFT, but it isn't, it is dual carriageway for basically all of South Dixie Highway, so saying that this small segment is an expressway because of a feature that is present across its whole run seems incorrect. 
There has to be a reason why South Dixie Highway was tagged with SR 5 so I would much prefer that a discussion would be had with the larger US OSM community on what the best way forward would be because, for consistency, if this segment gets changed to FL 5 then all roads tagged with SR 5 (or at least all of South DIxie Highway) should be converted to FL 5.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-29 23:15:04+00:00): I'm not sure you understood what I said. I didn't tag that specified portion of US 1 as an expressway because it was divided. I tagged that portion as an expressway because it 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 has grade-sepatated interchanges with HEFT and lacks at-grade intersections elsewhere along that corridor (minus the hotel). 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 were the reasons I tagged that portion of US 1 as an expressway.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it's tagged as SR 5 instead of FL 5. As far as I know, the rest of the United States (except Utah) uses (postal abbreviation) + number for tagging state highways. Just scrolling around the rest of Florida reveals that it also uses its postal code for state highways (i.e., Orlando). 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 is what I meant by "consistency." Since the format of (postal abbreviation) + number (instead of something like SR or SH) seems to be the default in the United States, I figured that was the consensus (in the U.S.) for tagging state highways.
Udarian (2026-01-31 00:41:28+00:00): I have started a conversation on the forums to see what the Florida community would prefer to standardize on when it comes to SR vs FL. If you want to comment there feel free, the link is https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/unifying-florida-ref-and-other-related-tagging-sr-vs-fl/141158 .

as for the stuff about the expressway segment, it is only "divided" between the ramps for the highway so I wouldn't really call that short segment a "expressway". From my understanding this is way to small to be an expressway. Also, if this is an expressway, allot of roads in Miami Dade could have "expressway" segments at highway entrance/exit ramps between the ramps.
kamilbogacki (2026-01-29 09:06:07+00:00): Nie dodajemy nazw dróg w ten sposób. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Nazwy
Udarian (2026-01-29 00:53:52+00:00): why did you change HEFT from SR 821 to FL 821, what was the reasoning behind this change?

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-29 03:05:21+00:00): Consistency with (AFAIK) the rest of the US. Also, the rest of Florida uses FL xx instead of SR xx, so this is also consistency.
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:03:36+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 14 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/224311692 v3 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/15163965 v9 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2331294740 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177826225
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-29 07:06:58+00:00): Found also some spammy entries or descriptions within this changeset ...
nevw (2026-01-29 02:31:08+00:00): Hi, if you change the imagery to Esri all these new streets are visible. A lot of new Mapbox imagery has been updated too.
Supaplex (2026-01-29 02:38:40+00:00): 已經有了
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/257932535
請問什麼問題呢？是旁邊停車場也是醫院範圍嗎？
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177826354
Linus W Frische (2026-01-31 13:15:06+00:00): Hej Niels

Foodbanken er flyttet til inde i selve Ansgars Kirke, så den behøver ikke blive tilføjet igen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12849485156
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2026-02-01 16:57:43+00:00): Tak, har fjernet dubletten
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:03:38+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 16 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1471915559 v2 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1297326507 v3 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/13507065333 v2
https://osm.org/node/12020009091 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177826762
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-21 16:00:41+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13507938034/history has religion = protestant that was added in this edit
what was meant by religion=protestant ? It is duplicate of religion=christian denomination=protestant - right?
nevw (2026-01-29 03:33:29+00:00): Hi, please not alter correct tags to make your router work.
Try using https://brouter.de/ to validate routing.
david120 (2026-01-29 22:54:58+00:00): Thanks for the tip.  Tags are not 100% accurate. Was routing via fire-breaks.
Supaplex (2026-01-29 05:52:50+00:00): Can you restrain your changeset to at least 2?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177828524
Supaplex (2026-01-29 05:53:04+00:00): It spans across two countries
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177828524
cnvery (2026-07-09 14:05:47+00:00): Hi @Supaplex, thanks for reminding, will split into two changesets in the future.
gc27 (2026-02-13 01:59:14+00:00): way#1469401406 について、現地調査とMapBoxに基づく編集をbingに基づいて変更されたようです。bingが古い状態ですので、修正します
NeisBot (2026-01-29 07:03:51+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 22 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1472142118 v1 | 3 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1471432878 v3 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1472142089 v1 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/13502373878 v2
https://osm.org/node/13502373879 v2
https://osm.org/node/13502373880 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177829961
felipeeugenio (2026-01-30 12:12:07+00:00): Hola Ian. por favor no agregar direcciones a los parques.
Además borraste todas las direcciones válidas que tenían los sitios y pasaste la muralla del deslinde por encima de básicamente todos los sitios.
Arreglé todo, pero por favor tomar nota
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177830064
felipeeugenio (2026-01-30 12:13:04+00:00): y Por favor no pegar las calles a los predios.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177830064
felipeeugenio (2026-01-30 12:19:14+00:00): Veo también que agregaste el pasto de la calle como private, lo que no es así, y además está despegado de los deslindes. 


Te pido Ian ir un poco mas lento. Hay una curva de aprendizaje para esto.

Saludos
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-22 09:41:34+00:00): Hi EJ Layco,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Per the OSM wiki, the name=* key is for "the primary name of the feature in the real world", i.e. what a common citizen of this city would call it in everyday conversation. The "official administrative name" of a feature goes in the appropriate tag, official_name=* See https://osm.wiki/Names#Names_with_generic_terms

Therefore, I moved the "official administrative name" of Meycauayan to the correct tag, official_name=*, and restored previous name=* in changeset 184423356

https://osm.org/changeset/184423356

Happy mapping!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-22 09:32:07+00:00): Reverted adding name=* with source=* of Google Maps, which is not allowed by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184422989

https://osm.org/changeset/184422989
VLD0251 (2026-02-05 18:19:18+00:00): Thanks for your contribution! two quick tips:
use amenity=school for the entire grounds and building=yes only for the actual building walls.
in addr:city, enter only the city name (البيضاء) without the country, to ensure search works correctly.
Happy mapping!
spartan03 (2026-01-29 05:35:14+00:00): Hello, I added the section of Tenth Avenue back with the access=private tag. Roads/paths with access restrictions should tagged with an appropriate tag instead of being deleted. Thanks!
Michael Hiebert (2026-01-29 05:56:40+00:00): Hmmm. Interesting approach. (also apologies - I went back to double check and I see it was added back, so I redeleted it thinking  it was an error I did... first time editor)

The street REALLY doesn't exist; it is just a part of the factory's parking lot. I'm worried that by leaving it in place, it implies a connection thru this facility when there isn't one at all. Specifically i'm trying to use a tool from Bike Citizens which uses OSM as a background (https://map.bikecitizens.net/at-graz#/!/0/1/49.10998,-97.55855/*,5) and it keeps showing bike routes thru this street, which spoils the results i'm getting. I'd like to use it to advocate local government for additional active transportation investment in the town. 

By making the street private access, will other tools still use it to show a path thru? I wonder if we HAVE to keep it in, could we shorten it at the east end so that it doesn't cross the tracks?
spartan03 (2026-01-29 06:31:52+00:00): No worries. I actually ended up having it end at the railway tracks before reading this because it doesn't look like there's an actual crossing there anymore. It's best to keep in as many things as we can so the map is accurate, but as you say, there is no connection there so it shouldn't cross the tracks. Also, basically all tools should recognize access restrictions like that. There are other tags that some tools don't recognize, but we can't really do anything about that, that would be up to the developer of the tool. Anyway, shoot me a message if you need help with anything, and good luck with your advocating!
Abhijith P Ramesh (2026-01-29 05:24:25+00:00): removed access - no
Ewen Hill (2026-01-31 22:35:15+00:00): Hi Nisha - this track does not appear to be in use , especially at the northern end. Can you let me know why it was added. If you do add small old tracks then please add tracktype=grade4 or in this case grade5. Adding tracks that don't exist could cause significant hardship to someone trying to use it.
watmildon (2026-01-29 18:57:04+00:00): Hello I would love to chat with out about some style adjustments that will make your map data more useful and resilient. 

I left a comment here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176686512

I am worried that someone will simply have to remove your hard work at some point and start over. Which I think we both agree is not ideal! :-D
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-27 11:11:51+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam and other mistagging for Lucid Private Offices POI in changeset 184688307

https://osm.org/changeset/184688307