piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-01-02 07:13:14+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/13425581158 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-10 07:32:25+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176752947
Thanks @user_5359
Kovoschiz (2026-01-02 05:29:00+00:00): Please upload your edits in the same area together. Don't update 1 object per changeset.
Sammyhawkrad (2026-01-05 10:17:47+00:00): Hi LakeTumba, could you please pay attention to buildings when mapping? The road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882485935) that you added intersects https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/881384322
LakeTumba (2026-01-06 01:57:14+00:00): Hi Sammyhawkrad, thanks for catching that! I usually try to avoid leaving overlapping features by running the validation tool in JOSM, but I must have missed it in this case. I’ll update the geometry to resolve the overlap. Thanks again, and have a great day!
mueschel (2026-01-03 11:38:11+00:00): Hi,
when you're checking these bus stops, could you also update the tagging? 'lines' is deprecated since several years and should be replaced by 'route_ref'.
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-02 15:00:10+00:00): #DataImport

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

In this and some of your recent changesets, you’ve added a large number of features that appear to share very similar tagging. Could you please tell us more about the source of this data and how it was collected? Specifically, I’d like to understand whether this was a data import or derived from an external dataset.

If an external source was used, could you also confirm that its licence is compatible with OpenStreetMap’s ODbL requirements?

Best regards,
Pascal
dp7 (2026-01-02 17:02:09+00:00): Hi Pascal, and hello JNP624.

Thanks for asking about the source. These are indeed an import of municipal boundaries for the province of Ancona.
While updating boundaries is useful, the import method has unfortunately created some data issues that need cleanup:

Overlapping areas: New place=* polygon areas were created, but they now overlap with existing landuse=residential polygons for many towns.

Duplicate admin data: The pre-existing admin points (nodes tagged as place=town/village with ISTAT codes) were not removed. These points already contained the ISTAT data. Now we have duplicate information (new boundary polygons + old admin points) all over the province.

The changesets were all made a few hours ago, so the situation is fresh. It would be great to coordinate a fix to resolve these overlaps and duplicates.

Thanks
Vaidotas (2026-01-02 11:49:21+00:00): This change looks suspicious. Why would there be a gate in the middle of the road and especially at the intersection of main road and driveway? Did you intended to map gate that is blocking the driveway to private yard?
And why boom barrier, that is clearly visible in orthophoto, was not mapped? It probably makes whole cul-de-sac access=private.
Vandana@28 (2026-04-17 01:41:07+00:00): Apologies for the mistake I committed. Going forward will take care. Thank you for the valuable feedback. Thank you.
watmildon (2026-02-02 19:34:10+00:00): I am starting to think there's a really helpful reference you'll be able to send me :-D

What is "Fl IMH"?
Natfoot (2026-02-03 19:49:30+00:00): I had to look it up. it was that it was flashing but out of orientation. 
it needs to be updated. it is now listed as extinguished.
Natfoot (2026-02-03 19:54:40+00:00): I can't remember where I found it listed that way but see the local notice to mariners for current listings. I got reports from a friend about the condition of this particular light and saw some pictures.
watmildon (2026-02-05 05:14:18+00:00): Is there a good place (or search terms?) to look up things like this? I am a total maritime noob.
Natfoot (2026-02-05 18:11:56+00:00): Start with the Local Notice to Mariners. 
https://navcen.uscg.gov/local-notices-to-mariners-by-cg-district
NeisBot (2026-01-02 07:06:13+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 (3 changesets) shows that 527 of your last 626 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=23516965
Antplanproje (2026-01-02 07:12:22+00:00): We are overseeing the planning of the Antalya–Alanya project, and the project has been uploaded to OSM so that users can access accurate information.
eggie (2026-01-02 08:26:08+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
Suhbeena (2026-02-02 21:43:09+00:00): Please refer to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Lane_assist/Examples/Motorway_exit for when to begin a motorway exit/slip lane. It should split before the legal separation(solid line), not when the lane begins
Taya_S (2026-01-02 16:50:25+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176752240
Taya_S (2026-01-02 16:50:26+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176752240
BCNorwich (2026-01-03 09:08:01+00:00): Hi, I've remove duplicated sections of highway, also removed the oneway=yes tag as there could have been disruptionto routing.

Regards Bernard.
joel56dt (2026-01-03 22:32:38+00:00): Wow, thank you for the huge effort both fixing the addresses and splitting the buildings into semi-detached ones. I was expecting just a split of the addresses into two nodes but you went above and beyond by separating each side of each duplex. I just want to emphasize how much I appreciate this!
YomanNH (2026-01-09 08:37:23+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1463641641 - coś tu i na innych drogach w okolicy jest nie za dobrze zmapowane.
- jeśli jest segregated=no, to skąd wzięło się footway:surface=asphalt i cycleway:surface=asphalt?
- jeśli jednak jest podział, to dlaczego nie dałeś surface=asphalt, skoro zarówno część dla pieszych, jak i dla rowerów oznaczyłeś jako asfaltową?

Czy tym razem również zignorujesz mój komentarz i nie naprawisz błędów?
capt_planet (2026-01-09 09:38:57+00:00): hej, hej, już spieszę z wyjaśnieniem:
- część to w pelni asfaltowy CPR bez segregacji, i tu rzeczywiście moje tagowanie jest bez sensu - przejrzę całość jeszcze raz
- cześć to droga pieszo-rowerowa, asfalt + kostka,
- część to droga pieszo-rowerowa, która po obu stronach jest asfaltowa, z separacja z podwójnego paska kostki.
YomanNH (2026-01-09 09:46:59+00:00): Dzięki za odpowiedź. Jakbyś miał jakieś wątpliwości dotyczące mapowania, to mogę pomóc.
Taya_S (2026-01-02 16:50:27+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176752240
HellMap (2026-01-02 18:24:19+00:00): Hello,

Please don't change compacted surface to unpaved. "Unpaved" is a generic term - it can be anything from mud to gravel. Compacted is a more accurate value than unpaved, if this road is compacted (which most unpaved rural roads in Latvia are). By removing this value, you are making the data less precise. If your navigator doesn't understand this value, then contact the developers and ask them to fix it. If anything, compacted is a better surface than what you can assume from plain unpaved.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface#Unpaved
richlv (2026-01-05 17:22:51+00:00): Thank you for spotting that.
Given that a lot of roads have been changed like this from compacted, gravel etc (for example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/75482221/history ), would a larger scale revert make sense?
Colbertson (2026-01-05 18:21:20+00:00): Also only changing road classifcation partially. I mostly agree with the changes but it doesnt make sense if you only do half a road.
HellMap (2026-01-05 20:47:58+00:00): I haven't reviewed all edits, but I also think some of the road classification is incorrect, because these changes modify individual segments but break the overall hierarchy of the network. Like the road in this changeset - the east side of it now mismatches. I don't personally know all these roads, but for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45184870 seems wrong and similarly splits road hierarchy while equating it to nearby roads that are definitely of lesser significance.
DeFra85 (2026-01-05 16:50:15+00:00): Ahoi, du hast bei der Korrektur der Grenze und der damit verbundenen Änderung der Straße leider die Wanderweg-Relation "Sachsenweg" gekappt
Ropino (2026-01-05 17:43:23+00:00): Hi,danke für den Hinweis. 
Ich habe das kleine Straßenstückchen in der Relation hinzugefügt.
DeFra85 (2026-01-05 19:15:29+00:00): 👍
Colbertson (2026-01-02 09:03:06+00:00): Vārti uz galvenās ielas? Laikam iD automātiski "izlabojis" nedrīkst tam akli ticēt.
NeisBot (2026-01-02 08:29:22+00:00): Hi keemo23, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 80% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 3 amenity(s)
- 181 building(s)
- 12 landuse(s)
- 1 name(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176732053
keemo23 (2026-01-02 08:35:57+00:00): Toutes les modifications sont correctes.
Les bâtiments supprimés sont mal dessinés, en plus l'image satellite n'est pas trop claire et ne permet pas de cartographier les bâtiments individuellement, alors je regroupe les bâtiments dans un bloc de bâtiments.
Sakari_N (2026-01-02 17:21:19+00:00): Moi,

Myös tässä muutoksessa oli raahattu yksi piste Porthaninkadusta kiinni rakennukseen. Korjasin tämän virheen.
eggie (2026-01-02 08:37:04+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  Wanneer het geen officiële naam is en bewoners het zo noemen dan beter loc_name=  gebruiken ipv name=.. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Kovoschiz (2026-01-03 17:47:12+00:00): Please don't accuse "vandalistic" when this is a suspected act. Don't change `old_name=` to `name=` without discussion.
Kovoschiz (2026-01-04 03:30:35+00:00): 2. Please don't add `name:en=` when it's only your own romanziation. `*:yue-Latn` has already been used.
eggie (2026-01-02 09:11:40+00:00): Dag FP,

foot en bicycle=yes hoef je niet te taggen. Dat is ingebakken. Zie wiki..

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Tag:barrier%3Dbollard

Impliceert

    area=no
    access=no
    foot=yes
    bicycle=yes
    mofa=yes
    moped=yes

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-02 09:13:36+00:00): Dag Rob, 
Het staat hier dubbel gemapt.
Je kunt het beste de sportinfo van de gebouwomtrek verwijderen.

MVG
eggie
NeisBot (2026-01-02 12:29:24+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/13426248422 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Team building event location in Atlanta GA"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-10 07:32:25+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176775141
Thanks @user_5359
selillium (2026-01-02 09:26:38+00:00): This is an update to surface data, *not* lane placements.
chath_tsu (2026-01-02 10:38:46+00:00): Hi! Thanks for contributing to the pedestrian infrastructure mapping in Portland. I wanted to note that in Oregon every intersection is legally a crosswalk, whether marked or not, unless signed otherwise. In this changeset you deleted an unmarked crossing feature. In this case, since the sidewalks are mapped as separate elements, the unmarked crossing ways serve as routable elements in routing calculations, otherwise there won't be a routable way to cross Sandy at this intersection. Please do not delete unmarked crossings like this unless there are "crosswalk closed" signs, especially in locations like this where there are curb ramps for the unmarked crossings. Thank you and happy mapping!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176734106
sembelst134 (2026-01-02 22:33:32+00:00): Moin, wollte fragen ob das vor der Feuerwehr rein als Platz gekennzeichnet bleiben soll, oder ob das eher als Parkplatz (zb mit access=emergency) getaggt wird?
Beschilderung widerspricht sich ja irgendwie mit Halteverbot aber Linienmarkierung und sogar Behindertenparkplatz
lorisobi (2026-01-05 15:53:00+00:00): in dresden scheinen mir solche parkplätze bei feuerwehr- und rettungswachen einfach als kundenparkplatz kartiert zu sein, ist auch etwas komisch aber scheint mir zumindest naheliegend
NeisBot (2026-01-02 12:30:18+00:00): 🌍 Bienvenido a OSM, Gallaecia Mare. ¡Gracias por contribuir!

Para hacer que la colaboración sea más fácil y ayudar a los demás a entender tus ediciones, es mejor agregar una breve descripción de los cambios que hiciste. Los comentarios claros ayudan a la comunidad a seguir tu trabajo y a proporcionar mejores comentarios. Puedes encontrar consejos para escribir buenos comentarios aquí[1].

✅ Aquí hay un comentario de ejemplo basado en tus ediciones del mapa: "Agregué edificios, actualicé atributos de calles residenciales y vivas"
(Auto-translation)
---
🌍 Welcome to OSM, Gallaecia Mare. Thanks for contributing!

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

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Added buildings, updated residential and living street attributes"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish
meisoof (2026-01-10 19:40:32+00:00): I'm going to re-add the Kingsland Dribve Back since your Imagery is outdated
sanjanasharma_lyft (2026-01-13 07:56:50+00:00): Hi meisoof,

My name is Sanjana, and I’m part of the OSM mapping team at Lyft. Many thanks for letting me know about the latest data & correcting my mistakes. I added a missing segment & corrected ways  based on Lyft owned aerial imagery, which was from September 2024. Agree with you, now I see that the Goring Extension (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1466085542) shouldn’t be removed from the data according to active telemetry. 
Sorry for that & for any inconvenience these edits may have caused. I’ll be more cautious in future when pushing changesets up.

Happy Mapping!

Thanks,
Sanjana
Tomas Straupis (2026-01-02 11:39:36+00:00): Pakeitimas atšauktas, nes jis kažkokią nesąmonę bandė padaryti su teisingai pažymėtu Žagarės regioniniu parku.
no details provided here (2026-04-19 18:26:50+00:00): Hi - I'm due to pass this way in a few weeks so I can support this.  Are you sure the buildings are triangle/rhomboid shaped like this? I think they are also able to be tagged as farm building/barn? Thanks.
TenaciousC (2026-04-19 19:14:03+00:00): Hi, Yes a bit sloppy. Have improved from imagery and tagged as you suggest. Thanks for the feedback. :-)
Vinber-Pro (2026-01-07 13:29:57+00:00): Salut,
j'ai l'impression qu'ici c'est ok, cool, bravo

ce changeset a été annulé ic et dans les diverses modifs préalablesi https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176944804
NeisBot (2026-01-02 12:30:29+00:00): 🌍 Tervetuloa OSM:ään, LSTJ JT. Kiitos osallistumisestasi!

Jotta yhteistyö olisi helpompaa ja muut ymmärtäisivät parannukset, jotka olet tehnyt, on paras lisätä lyhyt kuvaus tekemistäsi muutoksista. Selkeät kommentit auttavat yhteisöä seuraamaan työtäsi ja antamaan parempaa palautetta. Voit löytää vinkkejä hyvien kommenttien kirjoittamiseen täältä[1].

✅ Tässä on esimerkki kommenteista, jotka perustuvat karttatöihisi: "Lisättiin palvelutie ajotielle liittyvillä attribuuteilla"
(Auto-translation)
---
🌍 Welcome to OSM, LSTJ JT. Thanks for contributing!

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

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

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish
Taya_S (2026-03-08 16:56:27+00:00): This data has been deleted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179541449

Please don't just blindly try to 'fix' data as broken as this. 55 farms all named 'Fazends' (Farms) is just as wrong with or without the all-caps and bogus keys.

Best regards,  
Taya Snijder
Taya_S (2026-03-08 16:55:29+00:00): This data has been deleted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179541449

Please don't just blindly try to 'fix' data as broken as this. 85 towns all named 'Comnidades' (community) is just as wrong with or without the all-caps and bogus keys.

Best regards,  
Taya Snijder
NeisBot (2026-01-02 12:29:29+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/13426276837 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-10 07:32:26+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176737070
Thanks @chath_tsu
fghj753 (2026-01-02 11:02:43+00:00): Tervist,
1) Selle muudatuse käigus on Pelgulinna Selveri pakiautomaadist node/13183712238 saanud Ehte 10 garaaži nurgakivi. Tavaliselt juhtub see siis, kui kaardi lohistamisel haarata kogemata mõnest juba kaardil olevast objektist.
2) Mul on pisut kahtlusi selle osas, mille nimi peaks olema Putukaväil. Kas see on konkreetne jalgtee way/1414701196, park node/13196189853, pargiala r7752107 või midagi muud.

Ma kohe hetkel ei hakkaks midagi ümber tegema, aga võibolla peaks tulevikus selle muudatuse tagasi pöörama, et pakiautomaat ja eelmine garaaži nurgakivi oma kohale tagasi jõuaks, ning siis arutama foorumis https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ee/79 mille nimi peaks olema putukaväil.

Ideaalis peaks olema nii, et kui mingi nimega kohta on ainult üks, siis peaks olema kaardil ka selle nimega koht olema kaardil ainult üks kord. Mulle isiklikult on veidike hägune, et kui Putukaväila reklaamitakse 14km pikkuse pargina, siis kust-kuhu pargiala peaks jooksma. Hetkel katab park vaid poole 1.4km pikkusest kergliiklusteest.
DerKaiserschmarren (2026-01-04 15:54:58+00:00): Die Bridge-Area ist nicht umbedingt wichtig.

Was hingegen wichtig ist, wäre die Straße zu trennen und auf dem Abschnitt wo die Brücke ist, den oben bei dem Selector das Attribut "Bridge" hinzuzufügen.
Rooobert (2026-01-04 17:04:55+00:00): Also Straße bis zur Brücke, Straße auf der Brücke und Straße nach der Brücke? UNndann bei der mittleren Straße Attribut Brücke?
DerKaiserschmarren (2026-01-04 18:45:59+00:00): Ja genau so :)
IllOnlyBeAMinute (2026-01-02 14:17:24+00:00): Is there any reason you added these roads as public? I changed them to private and added the gate to reflect the as-built infrastructure.
sanjanasharma_lyft (2026-01-06 04:19:35+00:00): Hi IllOnlyBeAMinute,
My name is Sanjana, and I’m part of the OSM mapping team at Lyft. I created the ways using Lyft-owned aerial imagery. As there was no street-level imagery available at the entrances or exits, I couldn’t verify private access and left the roads untagged for private use. If you possess local knowledge, I’d greatly appreciate it if you’re adjusting the map accordingly.
I apologize for missing gates and appreciate your observation. I hope this helps clarify my edits. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss anything further, and thank you for your contribution.
Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Sanjana
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-04 01:48:36+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9493148144/history has housenumber = 535 that was added in this edit
Is it just less-used duplicate of addr:housenumber ?
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:housenumber

Is there any reason to not change to more widely used key?
user_3716049 (2026-02-05 09:58:30+00:00): Oh shit i can't explain how this could happend, i must have been tiered.

Thanks for your note !
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-11 14:48:28+00:00): And thanks for a fix and for your mapping!
NeisBot (2026-01-02 12:29:31+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/13426329076 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Orthodontic clinic in Pasadena"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-10 07:32:26+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176737089
Thanks @chath_tsu
T med ett g (2026-01-08 09:38:56+00:00): När jag försöker rutta med hjälp av en trail app för cykel så försöker den allt den kan att undvika väg 115414315. Det känns som att fler taggar behövs för att förtydliga för appen. Jag använder coros sitt ruttningskapningsverktyg.
archie (2026-01-08 09:52:40+00:00): Hej, routningen med hjälp av Valhalla och Graphhopper här på denna sida fungerar alldeles utmärkt, dvs cykeltrafik routas via den här vägen med hjälp av dessa routingverktyg. Däremot fungerar inte cykeltrafik med hjälp av OSRM. 
Så om ditt routingverktyg (du uppger coros) inte fungerar, så är det mest sannolika att detta verktyg tillämpar ett annat sätt att routa.
T med ett g (2026-01-08 10:33:22+00:00): Tack för att du kollade!
Det låter rimligt att routningsverktygen fungerar på olika sätt.
Jag är helt ny på OSM, men tycker kartor är kul, så försöker lära mig.

Eftersom det fungerar på olika sätt - så är väl då extra taggar inte onödiga, och dom gamla taggarna på denna vägen kan ge nytta att lägga in igen?
T med ett g (2026-01-08 15:39:42+00:00): Jag testade routingen med hjälp av Valhalla nu, och jag tycker den fungerar superkasst. Det är tydligt att cykel försöker undvikas på denna vägen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_bicycle&route=57.79057%2C12.39258%3B57.7955%2C12.38093#map=15/57.79137/12.38816&layers=D
T med ett g (2026-01-11 13:26:42+00:00): Efter mer grävning ser jag att det är just när motor_vehicles=no, som man specifikt måste säga att fast cykel är ok för vissa routing algoritmer. Jag kommer gå över ett större område och uppdatera det.