piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SafwatHalaby (2026-03-03 15:10:14+00:00): Each shelter was checked individually. If it was a publicly accessible bomb shelter, the tags agreed upon in the discussion were added.

I accidentally uploaded a local-only "checked" tag and then removed it. Some nodes in the north Galilea will therefore have an empty null edit in their history. They are practically unaffected.

I added "Fixme" for shelters I am unsure if shelters or not.

More edits to come
SafwatHalaby (2026-03-03 15:11:45+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802131545 appears to be an isolated error. Will be fixed
NeisBot (2026-03-03 14:36:42+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/13614692036 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Custom T Shirt Shop"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-11 18:39:39+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179717603
(No visible changes after review v1)
NeisBot (2026-03-03 14:36:44+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/13614683870 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-11 18:39:43+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/179305749
Langlaeufer (2026-03-04 09:35:48+00:00): Was sollte das bedeuten? bicycle	designated
bicycle:two_way:conditional	yes @ (2026 Mar 03 - 2026 Apr 15) bicycle=designated gibt den Weg bereits frei.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179305247
Langlaeufer (2026-03-04 09:43:13+00:00): ich meine a) die bedinung ist komplett überflüssig weil ja bicycle=designated
b) das  "two_way" postfix gibt es nicht
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179305247
Langlaeufer (2026-03-04 09:44:52+00:00): vehicle:conditional auf dem Fußweg ist ebenso überflüssig. weil Fahrzeuge da eh nicht erlaubt sind. vor und hinter dem Bindestrich gehört kein leerzeichen.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179305247
Langlaeufer (2026-03-04 10:05:32+00:00): aber nicht vergessen: Herzlich Willkommen bei OSM. Danke dass du uns hilfst die Karte aktuell zu halten. 
Ich habe die Punkte bereits korrigiert. Wenn dir noch ein Fehler auffällt, melde dich gerne. soll denn die Veloroute derzeit an der großen Kreuzung die Clausewitzstraße queren? dann würde auch da noch eine Ausnahme von der Einrichtungs-Regelung fehlen.

Grüße Langläufer.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179305247
EP_Repair (2026-05-25 16:20:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183166530 where the changeset comment is: Revert changesets adding vegetation traced from water and boundary ways, causing disruption to both features. User block issued.
Seyruun (2026-03-04 15:47:29+00:00): Thank you for contributing! Please feel free to add more information about the local area! :)

I drew many of those small roads and streets from aerial images and may make mistakes, and I don't know about the houses and shops there.
NeisAgent (2026-03-04 11:59:05+00:00): 🕵 This changeset was flagged by an automated quality assurance tool because the changeset tags appear to reference Google Maps or another Google mapping service as a data source.

Please note that using Google Maps, Google Street View, or similar Google services as a mapping source is not allowed in OpenStreetMap due to license restrictions.

More information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

If the data in this changeset was derived from Google Maps or another incompatible source, the edits may need to be reverted.

If this is a misunderstanding and the data was collected from permitted sources (e.g. local survey, Bing imagery, local knowledge, etc.), please clarify in a reply.
NeisBot (2026-03-03 14:54:42+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/13613147376 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-11 18:39:50+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179717611
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
dknelson9876 (2026-03-11 03:41:37+00:00): Hi Melissa, where did you get the dash cam footage you used as a source here? I drove this highway tonight and saw a 55 mph sign at approx. 4250 South and a 50 mph sign at approx. 3300 South
NeisBot (2026-03-03 15:15:42+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/13606277359 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-11 18:39:51+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179717612
(Restore previous tags)

 If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
SomeoneElse (2026-03-10 23:57:39+00:00): The Ring of Gullion way had a bit of a gap in it so I filled it in in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179663186
Cheers,
Andy
ramthelinefeed (2026-03-11 09:15:47+00:00): thanks! I haven't edited the Ring of Gullion for many months, so that gap could have been there a long time :) Good to have it fixed.
NeisBot (2026-03-03 15:21:43+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/13606092359 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-11 18:39:52+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179717613
(Restore previous tags)

 If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
MassCartog (2026-03-03 16:37:11+00:00): Hi welcome back, in this changeset you have removed paths that seem to exist on the ground. Seems like these paths were just added not too long ago, and there is significance heatmap data to show they do exist and are being used.

You 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. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

Seems like you also removed these same trails in changeset/131699489 years ago and other users have since added them back. Please stop removing trails, and instead use the tagging system if appropriate. 

Also its common to state the reason you are removing features, "updating" is not helpful for anyone reviewing. 

Please read for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
osmviborg (2026-03-04 07:07:35+00:00): Please don't modify/move/add address nodes. Addresses in Denmark are imported from an official database and maintained automatically. Thank You.
NeisBot (2026-03-03 15:27:39+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 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1484997216 v1 | 9 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179307671
MappingMore (2026-03-05 04:52:56+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179378051
NeisBot (2026-03-03 15:33:40+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 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1484998950 v1 | 5 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179307898
ajmat (2026-03-04 10:09:16+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179341482
NeisBot (2026-03-03 15:33:43+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/13614831065 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Massage therapy clinic"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-11 18:40:00+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179717619
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
SeasnaiIs (2026-03-09 12:04:47+00:00): I thought that we should always map from on the ground signage and usage. Am I mistaken?

see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/differences-between-osm-and-sustrans-mapping-of-the-uk-national-cycle-network/134337/3
Patrick Harper (2026-03-09 12:53:27+00:00): Official truth can be prioritised if there is community consensus, as with the A8(M) near Glasgow.
SeasnaiIs (2026-03-09 13:50:57+00:00): If there's community consensus then fair enough, but I can't find evidence of it. I feel in this case the signage and usage of the south path is very clear in that bikes are allowed, it's part of the NCN, and this is more important than outdated legislation
Patrick Harper (2026-03-09 15:13:41+00:00): It's part of the NCN because National Highways allowed Sustrans to put their signs along it. NH stopped enforcing the 1996 legislation in full, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
SeasnaiIs (2026-03-09 16:06:49+00:00): I'm not only talking about NCN signage, there's plenty of other signs, presumably National Highways signs, saying that the path is for bikes and is a "cycle track". It's one thing for National Highways to be not enforcing the legislation, but it's another for them to be putting up signs that contradict it. I don't see where the community consensus is on this
Patrick Harper (2026-03-09 19:03:09+00:00): If there are signs indicating pedal cycles on the south side and pedestrians on the north side being permissible, they are illegal due to the legislation (and they would be far from the only invalid signs on UK roads and paths).
SeasnaiIs (2026-03-09 20:01:01+00:00): There are indeed such signs. I'll leave the issue for now, but my position remains unchanged
Richard (2026-03-19 14:41:18+00:00): Changed back to cycleway.

In cases where the legal status differs from the clear on-the-ground reality, we map the on-the-ground reality and use the designation= tag to record the legal status. See, for example, the Oxford High Street: although it's nominally the A420 we don't map it as highway=primary (and haven't done for 20 years) because it's, well, closed to most motor traffic.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-19 15:39:11+00:00): if signs are illegal due to the legislation, this does not change that is signed in specific way

if you are interested, feel free to petition to change legislation
Robert Whittaker (2026-03-19 15:58:30+00:00): Perhaps more importantly, I would say that the presence of contradictory signs would generally make any stricter conditions imposed by the legislation unenforceable. So in practical terms here, the signage on the ground wins.
Jessy73 (2026-03-05 12:53:25+00:00): Bonjour, 
J'ai des doutes sur certains passages, sur quelle trace vous vous êtes basé ? Le site internet que vous mettez en avant ne contient pas de trace. 
Même si j'ai déjà vu du balisage encore en place côté Chambotte, je suis sceptique sur la réelle existence, maintient, entretien de cette boucle VTT ... 
Merci 
Jessy
casoum (2026-03-09 14:54:25+00:00): Bonjour Jessy,

Une trace est pourtant bien disponible sur le site d'Aix-les-Bains listé dans les sources (il faut dézoomé la carte...). Vous pouvez la trouver ici: https://www.aixlesbains-rivieradesalpes.com/cache/gpx/5939981.gpx

J'ai parcouru récemment la majeur partie des sections entre le Bourget-du-Lac et Chindrieux, le balisage est toujours bien en place.

Casoum
eggie (2026-03-03 17:13:23+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Wanneer er een fietsje op de fietsstrook getekend staat is het correct. Is het alleen een strook dan shared_lane gebruiken.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-03-03 17:17:05+00:00): Ik heb het vermoeden dat het cycleway=shared_lane moet zijn.
eggie (2026-03-03 19:42:22+00:00): Voorlopig omgezet naar fietssuggestiestroken.
Fietspaden zijn het zeker niet. 
Laat maar weten als er wel een fietsstrook met fietssymbool is gekomen.
MVG
eggie
mos_next_door (2026-03-07 11:51:07+00:00): Hi Sigurdblueface, this road is not opened, eastern part is not even built yet - checked it today. Reverting.
I-76 (2026-04-06 16:24:08+00:00): Just so you know, Penn Ave is signed "Private Drive, Keep Out" so I changed it back to access=private
jhaluska80 (2026-04-06 16:33:18+00:00): It's a public road according to the parcel map.  

Just cause an owner claims it is private doesn't make it true.  It just means he put a private sign up on public land.

Go check the parcel map and contact the city.
I-76 (2026-04-06 23:56:09+00:00): Makes sense. The sign was on a shed. By where the driveway splits off there is a sign saying "No Delivery Trucks Past This Point." Is this to be mapped?
jhaluska80 (2026-04-07 00:14:25+00:00): 131 is probably have trouble with trucks getting stuck in front of their home, so they bought a private sign and put it up to try to solve the problem.  There is no public turn around there and backing up is challenging.

I would recommend just changing the access to hgv=no for that section and leaving it public to people walking/biking/cars.

I would just make sure the driveway is mapped as access=private and also put access:delivery=no on the driveway.

That should make everybody happy.
I-76 (2026-04-07 12:31:21+00:00): Done, thanks for the help!
notmyproblem1 (2026-03-05 10:40:02+00:00): uhh... its not pretty safe to go on that street if I mapped it that way..
Via del Popolo its not even enough for 2 cars..
Jorisbo (2026-03-05 11:02:09+00:00): Hi notmyproblem, thank you for your comment. The road is part of of an official long distance velo-route and the common tagging for discouraged is only if explictly signed by roadsigns. kind regards, Joris
notmyproblem1 (2026-03-07 19:50:52+00:00): Oh, didnt know discouraged needed a roadsign in italy because Italian Telegram OSM group said its ok to map discouraged, very strange...
qstep (2026-03-03 16:16:50+00:00): Üdv az OpenStreetMap-en! Itt a székelykapu és a sorompó között van valamiféle egybefüggő kerítés, aminek a bejáratára raktál egy nevet? Ha nem, akkor maga a barrier=entrance létezése nem helyes (lásd wiki).

Ha igen, ez a név ki van írva arra a bejáratra? Ha nem, akkor nem szükséges a name, a területet egybefoglaló reláción már rajta van: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3332343
Wildsharky (2026-03-04 08:44:03+00:00): Revert of 179270393
gscholz (2026-03-16 07:19:44+00:00): Hi TAMTAM17,
this changeset has created a huge amount of errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-5.26411&lat=35.17236&zoom=15&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://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=179309867

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
GreggK (2026-03-05 15:43:19+00:00): The trails are an illegal access to the park and are not maintained. The trails shown in the NE corner of the park are along a natural gas pipeline, are not maintained for foot access, have steep slopes, and are highly susceptible to erosion, and are not sustainable. The powerlines in the SW corner of the park are not trails, and should not be used as such.  If users are hurt, it would be difficult to find them and evacuate them.
MassCartog (2026-03-06 01:31:36+00:00): Hi GreggK, thanks for the reply, make sure to read the comment on the changeset here too:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179307397

Trails not being maintained / official / are dangerous in some way, are all not valid reason to remove them From OSM. There existence is what makes them valid be included and not removed from OSM.
Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Its clear these trails exist, they keep getting added back by other users, and the heat map data shows they are being used, illegal or not. If you have source of official information then feel free to update the tags / access type for these trails. Thanks
GreggK (2026-03-06 13:51:55+00:00): Be advised, National Park Service Superintendent's Compendium - https://www.nps.gov/prwi/learn/management/park-superintendent-compendium-revised.htm

Subsection 1.5 General Access Entering and exiting the park by other than established park maintained roads and trails which appear on the park's visitor map is prohibited without a permit. - These trails are NOT on the park's visitor map 
Subsection 2.23 - Recreation Fees Fee Areas at Prince William Forest Park
Under Title 36 C.F.R. Part 71, recreation fees are established for the following entrance fee areas, and/or for the use of the following specialized sites, facilities, equipment or services, or for participation in the following group activity, recreation events or specialized recreation.

In addition, these trails are NOT maintained by the park, and are NOT patrolled by NPS personnel, except for potential enforcement of park rules and regulations
MassCartog (2026-03-07 15:42:47+00:00): Great! Thanks for the info. Feel free to mark the informal trails tags according to your information! But they should not be removed from OSM. Thanks
dvillas (2026-03-03 22:08:43+00:00): Correction: editing comment should be, "Updated Shahrah-e-Mirza Mughal via recent ground level imagery(KartaView). #adt"
YomanNH (2026-03-03 19:57:42+00:00): - "cycleway that does not cross anything there" - jak rozumiem, droga https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1484972092 jest halucynacją? A może jest ona tunelem pod drogą dla rowerów, albo wiaduktem nad nią?
- "Please discuss before removing it yet again" - sam nie przeprowadziłeś żadnej dyskusji wprowadzając zmiany, więc żądanie dyskusji od innych jest hipokryzją.
- "Understand before you do." - co understand? Kolejne zdanie bez sensu, tym razem po angielsku...
- "Don't remove kerb, crossing and continuity information." - cokolwiek z tego było usunięte? W którym dokładnie miejscu nie było ciągłości? Trzeba było wskazać dziurę w infrastrukturze, to bym ją niezwłocznie naprawił. Problem jest taki, że nie było żadnej dziury, więc nie miałbyś czego wskazać.
YomanNH (2026-03-03 20:03:36+00:00): Wyjaśnij mi:
- Dlaczego uważasz, że rowerem można przejeżdżać przez przejście dla pieszych, jeśli obok jest infrastruktura dedykowana rowerzystom?
- Co fizyczne oddziela w tym ciągu część pieszą od rowerowej, że mają być zmapowane jako osobne linie?
Yog Sot (2026-03-03 21:06:00+00:00): duplikujesz wątki na różnych changesetach, dlatego by tego uniknąc mógłbyś załozyć temat na przykład na forum

przeklejam odpowiedzi, które powinny wyjaśnić twoje wątpliwości również w dyskusji tego changesetu:
skupię się na wstępie:
> Zgadza się, to nie był nieoznakowany przejazd dla rowerów. To był przejazd dla rowerów połączony z przejściem dla pieszych.

Skoro nie był nieoznakowany, to po co wspominasz o tym, że był połączony z przejściem?
Nieoznakowane przejście jest logicznie dla pieszych, natomiast droga dla rowerów nie ma przejazdu dla rowerów.
Musiałes widzieć area:highway

Dlatego odnośnie twojego ostatniego komentarza:
> - Dlaczego uważasz, że rowerem można przejeżdżać przez przejście dla pieszych, jeśli obok jest infrastruktura dedykowana rowerzystom?

Nie twierdze, że można, nie wiem czemu się mnie o to pytasz.

> - Co fizyczne oddziela w tym ciągu część pieszą od rowerowej, że mają być zmapowane jako osobne linie?

Oddziela krawężnik, który akurat w Polsce stanowi jednoznaczną konstrukcyjną granice.
Natomiast nie dlatego zmapowałem osobno, tylko dlatego, że nie jest jak twierdzisz: "osobno droga piesza", tylko osobno przejście przez jezdnie, a obok droga dla rowerów.

To są ważne informacje, a poza tym fakt iż niewidomi dostają ostrzeżenie o wypustkach, ale tylko przed nieformalnym przejściem przez jezdnie, a rowerzyści nie mają krawężnika i przez to nawigacje mogą priorytezowac taką trasę jako ciągłą DDR bez niebezpiecznych nierówności, jest ważne.

Ponadto jest to bardzo ciekawy usecase i dobrze bys zrobił pracując np nad proposalem specyfikacji czegoś takiego w wariancie tagowania na jednej kresce tak jak lubisz. Zasięgnięcia opinii społeczności.
Bo tagowanie na jednej kresce jest bardzo ważne i chciałbym aby ludzie potrafili o tym rozmawiać.