piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-03-22 00:39:39+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 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1491366976 v1 | 8 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=180231012
whitepanda (2026-03-24 05:00:21+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:180297803
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-24 06:38:04+00:00): @whitepanda Thanks for fixing the mentioned issue and for commenting here.

Would it be possible to add a direct link to the changeset instead of only the raw changeset ID? Something like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180297803 would be very helpful.

Thanks!
rskedgell (2026-03-23 08:57:06+00:00): highway=footway already implies no access for other transport modes, so this edit will have no effect whatsoever on cycle routing software.
Pete Owens (2026-03-23 11:10:55+00:00): Unfortunately that is not the case. For example cyclOSM renders paths where cycling is not allowed in grey as rather than brown.
rskedgell (2026-03-23 11:16:41+00:00): Tagging for the renderer is bad enough, but tagging for just one tile provider is absurd. It still has no effect whatsoever on routing.
Pete Owens (2026-03-23 12:05:49+00:00): I am not tagging for one renderer - It is a problem with all cycle routers. I merely raised it as a concrete example to disprove your claim that the edit would have no effect. 

Indeed the usual reason that mappers take issue with explicit cycle access tagging is when they notice that a cycle router is no longer including an illegal route.
rskedgell (2026-03-24 07:58:46+00:00): CyclOSM is a raster tile provider, so it  isn't an example of a problem with any cycle router. It doesn't disprove anything. If you feel that there is a problem with how it renders highway=footway in the absence of bicycle=no then it would be more appropriate to submit an issue or pull request at https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style

Similarly, if you do find a concrete example of a cycle router which incorrectly routes over highway=footway unless bicycle=no is set, logging a support ticket on the router's website would be more appropriate than trying to add a redundant bicycle=no to the ~150k ways tagged footway=sidewalk in the UK.

I'm not against tagging foot=no on highway=footway ways where a cycle prohibition is explicitly signed. In those cases, it's also useful to add bicycle:signed=* (as StreetComplete does). It's also possible to add a node on the way affected tagged with traffic_sign=GB:951
tomhukins (2026-03-24 09:37:57+00:00): @rskedgell's suggestion of only tagging bicycle=no where it is explicitly signed, and adding additional tags to describe the signage, seems like the best approach here instead of tagging every sidewalk as bicycle=no.

I would be interested to see examples of cycle routers sending cyclists along sidewalks: so far none have been provided to support the case that tagging every sidewalk as bicycle=no achieves anything useful.
Pete Owens (2026-03-25 01:04:47+00:00): Compare this illegal route:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/123396180/#quietest

To a similar section with explicitly tagged prohibition:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/123396186/#quietest

So it clearly does make a difference. Though it seems odd to say the least that someone should make multiple comments about an edit that they believe has no effect whatsoever!
rskedgell (2026-03-25 07:52:42+00:00): Given that your first attempt to "prove" a routing problem was to refer to a lesser-used tile provider, I have to ask two questions:
1) How long did it take you to contrive that?
2) Have you logged a support ticket with @CycleStreets at https://www.cyclestreets.net/feedback/
rskedgell (2026-03-25 08:17:42+00:00): I see you've also added bicycle=no to several highway=crossing nodes so you're clearly not too concerned about whether legal cycle routing along the roads crossed works any more. Adding access tags to intersection nodes is likely to affect all ways through that intersection.
SomeoneElse (2026-03-25 21:35:25+00:00): >  this illegal route:

What illegal route?  The Cyclestreets route that you linked to is suggesting that someone push their bike along the pavement apart from the sections at the very start and end!
Pete Owens (2026-03-26 00:54:52+00:00): The claim was: 
"this edit will have no effect whatsoever on cycle routing software". 
Which is simply not the case. I offer not one but two different examples demonstrating that explicit tagging does indeed make a difference and folk continue argue, despite the clear evidence that data consumers do indeed treat tagged paths differently to untagged ones.

If a cycle router returns a route showing a pavement highlighted in a  big thick green line then you must anticipate cyclists will ride that route rather than read the small print disclaimer that:
"Cycling in this section is not permitted."
Also, "not permitted" is not strong enough - that just implies the absence of a right of way which might be the case for a footpath on which the landowner might have no objection to people riding as opposed to a pavement where it is illegal and dangerous.
rskedgell (2026-03-26 07:35:58+00:00): You've given one example of a routing service where you have an issue and one tile provider.

The obvious places for you to raise these issues are with the providers of these services, not by adding redundant tags for the renderer/router to the OSM database.

Alternatively, you could create a proposal for an automated edit to all of the UK's highway=footway + footway=sidewalk ways which do not have a bicycle=* tag already set. Please be sure to state that your justification is that you feel that "not permitted" in CycleStreets will be interpreted to mean "might be allowed".
Richard (2026-03-26 11:20:40+00:00): "you must anticipate cyclists will ride that route rather than read the small print disclaimer"

It is not our job to second-guess UI decisions made by data consumers.
matt_ellery (2026-03-26 15:43:02+00:00): "If a cycle router returns a route showing a pavement highlighted in a big thick green line then you must anticipate cyclists will ride that route rather than read the small print disclaimer that:
"Cycling in this section is not permitted."
Also, "not permitted" is not strong enough - that just implies the absence of a right of way which might be the case for a footpath on which the landowner might have no objection to people riding as opposed to a pavement where it is illegal and dangerous."

Have you raised these concerns with the developer of Cyclestreets?
Pete Owens (2026-03-26 18:19:30+00:00): The problem isn't with Cyclestreets but with the underlying OSM data (ort rather lack of data). Cycle access is undefined by default for footways in OSM so in the absence of any explicit tagging cycle routers treat them as legitimate routes - hence the importance of explicit cycle access tagging (both of where cycling is allowed and where it isn't)
SomeoneElse (2026-03-26 18:32:57+00:00): > Cycle access is undefined by default for footways in OSM 

Untrue. `highway=footway; footway=sidewalk` makes it clear what the legal situation is. Where have you read that cycling on a `highway=footway; footway=sidewalk` is legal? If a router was assuming that (and you have presented no evidence that any are) where can it have got that information from?
rskedgell (2026-03-26 19:04:17+00:00): Even if it were true that cycle access were undefined on highway=footway without an explicit bicycle=* tag (and it isn't), you'd need to do the following:
1) provide credible evidence of a routing service which actually does this, and
2) demonstrate that you had actually made some attempt to contact the provider of the routing service in order to diagnose and hopefully resolve the problem.

So far you haven't, although you can of course suggest that CycleStreets highlight dismount sections with "NO CYCLING HERE!!!" in red 128pt blackletter.
jayaddison (2026-03-29 01:29:47+00:00): @[Pete Owens] tagging the footway as bicycle=no appears to have the effect of causing the CycleStreets router to suggest to the user that they should ride on the road regardless of the riding style (quiet / fast) that they select.

Is that what you intended, or would bicycle=dismount be more appropriate?
jleedev (2026-03-22 00:56:16+00:00): Revert of changeset/177083702
Ltrlg (2026-04-03 06:42:53+00:00): way/26495093 semble avoir été oublié ?
mw014 (2026-04-03 09:36:54+00:00): Bien vu petit oubli de ma part ! c'est corrigé
marc__marc (2026-03-24 12:51:35+00:00): Hello,
thanks for those improvement.
Arecaceae isn't a specie but a taxon
taxon=Arecaceae
Regards,
Marc
WalkingWiki (2026-03-25 03:57:41+00:00): Thanks for letting me know, I'll mark Arecaceae as taxon=Arecaceae in future
whitepanda (2026-03-24 04:44:06+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:180333494
MassCartog (2026-03-23 12:56:36+00:00): Hello, Could you explain why you have moving roads from tertiary → secondary in a ton of changesets? What is your source? 

Note you should be explaining this in the changeset comments, "Fixed road" does tell anyone reviewing changes why you are doing things. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Joseph R P (2026-03-28 01:49:56+00:00): MassCartog, the editor who created this changeset either is someone who has the exact same mannerisms of this one editor, or, is this particular user who has been blocked from OSM countless times in the past on various other accounts, primarily making edits in Florida and Maine, originally editing as edops and now more recently as 44mpr (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/44mpr). They don't respond to changeset comments and make massive undiscussed edits to place classifications (changing a lot of cities to towns and vice versa) as well as changing the classification of roads all over, both often with no justification in their changeset comments, usually relying on vague comments like "fixed road" and "minor fix". A few times they have gone out and made the same changes after their previous account was banned and will probably revert anything you fix until they are blocked again. If this is that user and not just someone else who coincidentally has the same mannerisms of them, and Philadelphia is an are you specialize in mapping around, checking in on their edits every now and then might be good.

I don't want to outright accuse this editor of being the ban evader considering it's possible that they aren't. In which case—philpennmap it would likely be in your best interest to not use the exact same vague changeset comments as that user, not make the exact same controversial edits as them without (at least providing justifications if you don't discuss them first), and to read comments from other users. 

However, if I have more proof that this is a sockpuppet account and/or more damaging edits are made, I will send a quick DWG email.
whitepanda (2026-03-24 04:56:34+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:180288643
World_Winner (2026-03-23 06:34:33+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 180283670
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-22 06:59:38+00:00): @MappingMore Thanks for fixing the mentioned issue and for commenting.

Would it be possible to add a direct link to the changeset instead of only the raw changeset ID? Something like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180232285 would be very helpful.

Thanks!
NeisBot (2026-03-22 02:45:48+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/13668136743 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-30 04:33:04+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/180238412
observing0325 (2026-03-22 16:39:44+00:00): The business website https://coxhn.com/
pwbriggs (2026-03-22 05:18:23+00:00): What do you mean by "doesn't register as a POI"? Are you referring to a particular website or app?

I'll remove the extra one you added and look into getting the original one tagged correctly.
JamesonTC (2026-03-22 15:14:21+00:00): On both OSMAnd and Organic Maps, no Electrify America POI is present in that location.
pwbriggs (2026-03-23 06:05:10+00:00): Okay, I updated this one and hopefully OSMAnd and Comaps will understand the tagging correctly next time they get a data update (within a couple weeks usually)

Thanks for your work on this, I really appreciate it!
pwbriggs (2026-03-23 23:37:47+00:00): Thanks. Just to make sure you're aware, demolished:building=* is for buildings, like these, that have been removed in real life but still appear on a lot of aerial imagery. Imagery often lags by several years, so such buildings are sometimes at risk of being re-mapped by well-meaning mappers looking at old imagery, unless we keep them around as demolished:building=* until most imagery is updated or something new takes over the space and gets mapped.

So you used this correctly, thanks—I just wanted to make this clear because sometimes that distinction trips people up: OpenStreetMap generally doesn't keep historical information around if it's no longer "on the ground," except in rare exceptions like demolished:*=*. OpenHistoricalMap (https://openhistoricalmap.org) is an alternative project about past history, if you're interested.
Th3eit (2026-03-24 01:14:56+00:00): Thanks, that's what I was aiming for.

I guess an alternative is to replace such buildings with whatever happens to be there currently (like construction sites or vacant lots), but using demolished:building is safer from the perspective of a mismatch with aerial imagery and also easier.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-22 09:22:54+00:00): Hi,

may we know the reason behind removing: name:de, name:fa, name:ml, name:sr, name:cs, name:hu?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/130484930/history/37

Thanks.
user_15202633 (2026-03-22 09:35:14+00:00): If the alphabet of that language also uses Latin characters, please note that this municipality has an unique name that cannot be translated, this information is provided in the Spelling, Pronunciation, and Morphology Dictionary
of the Romanian Language.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the information in the dictionary, please contact the language advisory service at the “Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics via email at inst@lingv.ro.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-22 09:58:49+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

The removal of identical or unverified transliterations may be justified. However, OSM tagging is based on verifiable usage rather than whether a name is considered "translatable".

In addition, names in other languages (including exonyms) should be kept if they are in established use and supported by reliable sources. Could you please provide sources showing that these names are not in use? If not, I would suggest reconsidering the removal, as it may be appropriate to restore them.

Best regards
user_15202633 (2026-03-22 10:06:18+00:00): It's nothing more than a redundant action.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-22 10:13:32+00:00): I agree that identical names across languages may be redundant. However, the removed tags included established exonyms (e.g. documented in sources such as Wikipedia), which are not identical to the default name and therefore not redundant.

OSM names are based on verifiable usage. As no sources have been provided showing that these names are not in use, their removal does not appear to be in line with OSM guidelines. If no supporting sources can be provided, I would consider restoring the removed names.

Best regards
user_15202633 (2026-03-22 10:21:01+00:00): I will update/add them shortly
Joseph R P (2026-03-28 02:11:42+00:00): McCarran Blvd does form a ring road around Reno, but it's a little too urbanized to serve as a true city-bypassing beltway like the 215 does around Vegas. It mostly links other major local highways like Pyramid Way, Sun Valley Blvd, and Virginia Street to each other rather than providing a bypass to through traffic,  despite its expressway-like construction (which is just a more common theme for the major roads around Reno than elsewhere than in the Las Vegas Valley).

Veterans Pkwy is a good call though. I think I upgraded this one to trunk a couple years ago but in retrospect this is another road just like McCarran Blvd, that being a highway that looks like it could be a bypass but it mostly serves local, suburban traffic.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-28 03:06:43+00:00): Okay, I guess I'll change it back. I checked the AADT of both roads: While McCarran Blvd does have a higher AADT than Veterans Pkwy, it still doesn't have as much traffic as, say, I-80 or US 395. I'll change McCarran Blvd back to primary but keep the expressway tags (I found a gap somewhere).
World_Winner (2026-03-23 07:15:30+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 180287582
ascending_slugcat (2026-04-04 23:46:11+00:00): Oh shoot. Okay thanks for correcting these. :)
cswilson252 (2026-04-08 14:51:28+00:00): No problem! Thanks for taking the time to contribute to OSM, especially in an area like Hamilton that isn't updated all too often :))
Minh Nguyen (2026-04-20 18:57:07+00:00): Hello, what was your source for changing these roadways from highway=proposed to highway=construction (contrary to your changeset comment)?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-04-21 00:49:37+00:00): The ways were already tagged with construction=motorway, so I retagged them as highway=construction to be consistent.
Minh Nguyen (2026-04-21 00:52:38+00:00): OK, looks like it should’ve been highway=proposed proposed=motorway. Someone in Slack did some sleuthing and determined that ground hasn’t broken on this bypass (and is unlikely to in the near future).
CurlingMan13 (2026-05-11 22:09:32+00:00): There were new industrial aeras with roads recently mapped along where this proposed highway is supposed to go.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174477633

I suspect that it isn't likely to be built anytime soon.  It has been either construction or proposed for the better part of 11 years.  But with new construction in it's path, I sincerely wonder if it will be built anytime soon and should even be mapped if there is no potential in the near future.
Minh Nguyen (2026-05-12 16:04:14+00:00): Yeah, it’s looking even less realistic these days. I think the main reason to keep it at this point – a weak reason – is just that someone might revivify it otherwise.
Preston Maness ☭ (aspensmonster) (2026-03-22 04:18:59+00:00): #UnmappedSmallTownUSA
NeisBot (2026-03-22 04:28:04+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/13668235579 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Cargadores de vehículos eléctricos"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Cargadores de vehículos eléctricos"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-30 04:33:07+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180611360
(Delete spam tags. First version)
❤️‍🔥 (2026-03-24 12:16:06+00:00): thanks for your edits. Addresses don't get added to lines, instead they get added as a point, or added to the specific building (if known).

I've made some changes here so you can see how it's normally done. You could also take a look at Devonport or Herald Island where all driveways + addresses have been mapped perfectly
Terry Gruijters (2026-03-25 05:17:48+00:00): Thanks for your help. Still learning. I struggled trying to use the graphic interface only getting the right tags. It helped when I noticed the text entry option icon. The graphic interface only options just don't seem to allow correct designations, but allow things like addresses on lines which apparently they shouldn't. I need more practice.
felipeeugenio (2026-03-22 13:00:31+00:00): Hola. Intenté rescatar algo de lo que hizo, pero fue imposible. Eso si completé lo que creo que intentó hacer.

Por favor ingresar al chat de la comunidad al https://t.me/OSMcl para recibir instrucción de cómo mapear, porque básicamente todo lo que hizo es un error.
La idea es poder ayudarlo, pero por favor tomar contacto. gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180233823
spiregrain (2026-03-22 14:16:50+00:00): Hi there, welcome to this part of London.  Please be aware that there is a lot of construction work underway over the last few years, and it's still ongoing.   The aerial images are not always a good guide to what's really there.  please be careful and please do not 'fix' objects that have been added by local people who have carried out in person surveys.

any questions or anything you're not sure about, I can go and look at it in the ground and let you know.

Ken
B Sai Deepthi (2026-03-23 04:27:15+00:00): Thank you for the valuable feedback. Please feel free to point out similar suggestions in future as well. 
Regards,
 B Sai Deepthi
felipeeugenio (2026-03-22 12:45:07+00:00): Hola. Por favor no realinear caminos. COn la foto que está viendo no es suficiente para sacar una conclusión.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180234336
felipeeugenio (2026-03-22 12:48:59+00:00): Estimado. Por favor velar por la calidad de la información y la ortografía. Movió todas las calles que tocó y las dejó deformes. además de duplicar información que ya estaba. Voy a intentar rescatar información de lo que agregó, pero por favor ingresar al chat d ela comunidad en Telegram para recibir instrucción.
gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180234336
felipeeugenio (2026-03-22 12:42:30+00:00): Hola. Tomó todo un sector actualizado y lo modificó con una foto antigua. Por favor cuidado con las ediciones. Esto será reversado.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180234559
qstep (2026-03-22 09:28:55+00:00): N/A-t szerintem nincs értelme megadni, akkor inkább ne legyen ott semmi.
infeeeee (2026-03-24 14:55:21+00:00): Javítottam: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180358499

Amúgy az árult söröket is elég csak a brewery=* címkében megadni, a drink:beer=* -ben a módját kell részletezni: üveges, csapolt, van vagy nincs.
literan (2026-03-23 19:26:58+00:00): но зачем дублирование тегов и на здании, и на территории)
augxcgrwxo (2026-03-23 20:29:58+00:00): хм, это было до меня, обновлял только часы. выглядит что для здания излишне, ок удалить?
literan (2026-03-24 18:38:05+00:00): лучше оставить теги только на территории
kaeso (2026-03-24 11:11:04+00:00): Ciao, penso che questa tua modifica (e quelle successive) sia sbagliata, il percorso ufficiale di questo cammino finisce a Livorno.

---

Hi, I think this change (and the subsequent ones) are wrong, the official path of this hiking route ends in Livorno.
Paolo Rindi (2026-03-24 11:57:53+00:00): La modifica è corretta, la meta ultima del cammino di San Jacopo è Santiago, stiamo mettendo in evidenza le relazioni con i cammini successivi, e comunque è un lavoro in corso.