piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-02-25 22:57:44+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/13599634896 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Construction company"
---
Par exemple, une version plus neutre et factuelle de ton texte pourrait être : "Entreprise de construction"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
UDK Azur (2026-02-25 23:03:23+00:00): modification effectuée, j'ai changé la description
NeisAgent (2026-03-03 10:20:48+00:00): 🕵 The mentioned node appears to be part of a highway=*

Businesses are usually mapped as standalone nodes (or within building polygons), rather than as part of a road geometry.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-22 14:50:50+00:00): Split SEO POI from highway node and cleaned up remaining SEO spam tags for POI in changeset 184435883

https://osm.org/changeset/184435883
NeisBot (2026-02-25 23:00:45+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/13598311524 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-06 05:33:05+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179426109
(No visible changes after review)
clambake92115 (2026-03-19 23:48:25+00:00): why did you add https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483086010 in the middle of a parking lot, and mark the toll lanes as tertiary links?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-22 03:36:05+00:00): To connect the tertiary roads at either end of that very specific road segment.
LateNightTone (2026-05-19 10:16:29+00:00): Thanks for the extra local information. I've consolidated the extra data you had added to node 13329406661 into the existing school area (way 246882109), which already contained some of the addresses and contact details. Also removed address details from the shool building polygon in version https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/804965004/history/5

Best to avoid mapping duplicate entries, only one object should contain the school details, otherwise it creates confusion in GPS and for end users of the map data.
aTarom (2026-02-26 07:49:13+00:00): Hola, el tag
high=556 m
por ejemplo en
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13599643967/history
según IGNráster (~990m) no es valor de elevación,
qué significa?
Saludos
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2026-03-22 19:46:35+00:00): نرجوا منكم عدم إضافة أماكن شخصية للخريطة
zorglubu (2026-02-27 17:22:21+00:00): Bonjour jojolaglandouille,

Ne considère pas ce message comme une critique mais plutôt comme une suggestion pour cohérence avec ce qu'on l'on fait en général en France.

Mettre plusieurs zones landuse=residential dans une relation multi-polygone demande beaucoup d'effort et n'est pas une bonne idée. Les multi-polygones, sauf si vraiment nécessaires (ex: mettre une forêt au milieu d'une ville), sont à éviter car ils rendent la maintenance de la carte difficile.

D'autre part le fait de les nommer fait apparaître des noms de lieux-dits en multiples exemplaires sur la carte, ce qui la charge inutilement.

Voir par exemple https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:landuse%3Dresidential#Zones_r%C3%A9sidentielles_nomm%C3%A9es

Si tu as des doutes ou des questions, je t'invite à venir échanger avec les autres utilisateurs sur le forum https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/
C'est un endroit très convivial :-)

Bien cordialement.
MappingMore (2026-02-28 10:58:34+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179165683
NeisBot (2026-02-25 23:51:48+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/13599717342 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-06 05:33:06+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/179062007
NeisBot (2026-02-26 00:00:47+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/13599717342 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
MappingMore (2026-02-28 10:02:59+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179164124
MappingMore (2026-02-28 10:12:35+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179164426
MappingMore (2026-02-27 15:19:30+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179136279
Kees 59 (2026-03-16 14:08:41+00:00): Nodes 92310197, 13599781835 and 13599779741 have yes' as value for lit, might that be a typo?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-03-27 10:37:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 180495414 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some fantasy mapping in USA
luisforte (2026-02-26 10:49:21+00:00): Olá
O lugar com nome "Curral de Moinas" é bem conhecido da ficção portuguesa. Mas é desconhecido das entidades oficiais. Há alguma fonte credivel que sustente a atribuiçao deste nome?
JoniBarTeam (2026-02-26 11:18:27+00:00): Olá. Sim este local é conhecido pelos habitantes das localidades visinhas. O nome deve-se ao antigo curral de burras e burros que era usado pela comunidade. O meu avô e a sua familia habitaram e cultivaram estas terras durante geracões.
luisforte (2026-02-26 12:15:01+00:00): Ok, obrigado.
❤️‍🔥 (2026-03-02 11:43:11+00:00): heya, shall we delete it then? this would be more suitable for https://openhistoricalmap.org
ForestFurnace (2026-02-26 01:39:41+00:00): Boalsburg, PA: Changing East Kay Street from access:private to access:permissive. It is a privately owned road but looks like a standard asphalt residential road connecting the Kaywood neighborhood and the neighborhood to the east. I didn't see any private drive/private property signs from the west end and there is a speed limit sign.
Alliegaytor (2026-02-26 03:10:02+00:00): Hi,

Please do not attach serviceway nodes to the Suburban Rail Loop ways
B Sai Deepthi (2026-03-02 01:29:52+00:00): Apologies for the mistake I committed. Thank you for the valuable feedback. I look forward to your suggestion/feedback in the future as well. 
Thank you,
B Sai Deepthi
hahae (2026-02-26 02:40:55+00:00): no offence, but 安大略;安大略 seems to be too repetitive; feel free to revert this edit
ItsAlyx (2026-02-26 21:30:25+00:00): Please try to keep changesets somewhat geographically consistent, this changeset has minor changes in York, PA, as well as unrelated changes in Raleigh, NC, leading to an unnecessarily large bounding box.
NeisBot (2026-02-26 03:27:40+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 14 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1483153641 v1 | 10 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1483153640 v1 | 4 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179065306
NeisReview (2026-03-06 05:33:07+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179122876
xkillah (2026-04-20 08:28:51+00:00): Что со спец школой? Её тут больше нет?
xkillah (2026-04-20 08:31:51+00:00): Если нет, то следует включить эту территорию в полигон аграрного колледжа т.к. нет второго учебного заведения
Dzertanoj (2026-04-18 02:19:32+00:00): Care to explain the deletion of this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1449270485#map=16/45.37869/-122.61225 ?
EButlerEcologist (2026-04-19 00:18:36+00:00): Are you referring to the footpath that approaches Rinearson Creek from the parking area? It's been decommissioned and is no longer accessible.
Dzertanoj (2026-04-20 17:01:12+00:00): Yes, I am referring to that path, and it was tagged as "access=no" to indicate that it's inaccessible. Yet, if it physically exists and is verifiable. Public access is not a requirement for the ability to map a path. In case you believe that publicly inaccessible objects shouldn't be mapped, that is not a rule, therefore this path shouldn't have been removed from the map. If that was the only reason for removal, I'm going to revert it.
EButlerEcologist (2026-04-21 01:46:01+00:00): It doesn't physically exist anymore; it's overgrown with vegetation. (I've tried to hike it recently and it's a bushwhack.) If you think it should be reverted, though, I'll leave that up to you.
DerKaiserschmarren (2026-02-26 14:00:15+00:00): Hallo danke für den Edit.
Weißt du auch auf welcher Ebene dieses Objekt ist? Ist das im Erdgeschoss oder im Keller?
BunnyAlive (2026-02-26 22:11:17+00:00): Der konkrete Eintrag gehört zum Untergeschoss. Ich habe Level -1 hinzugefügt.  Es ist in den Räumen vom TüWi Beisl, wenn das ggf. auch noch verknüpft werden soll/kann.
DerKaiserschmarren (2026-02-27 06:01:02+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, ich werde es gleich ergänzen.
Sonst passt alles derweil und sieht gut aus. :)
BunnyAlive (2026-02-27 06:15:01+00:00): Danke, super.
BunnyAlive (2026-02-27 07:09:53+00:00): Jetzt habe ich noch eine Frage. Der frühere Name und nach wie vor sehr gebräcuhlich ist "Brotpiloten". Ebenso sucht niemand mit dem * im Namen, womit das Objekt auch mit "Brotpilotinnen" gefunden werden soll. Ich habe den Tag alt_name gefunden. Hier wird in der englischen Hife geschrieben, dass mehrere Namen mit Semikolon getrennt nicht empfohlen werden. Ebenso sollten eher die vorgereihten Tags genutzt werden. Ich würde short_name: Brotpilotinnen und loc_name: Brotpiloten nun vorschlagen. Gibt es eine bessere Vorgehensweise? Danke für die Unterstützung.
DerKaiserschmarren (2026-02-27 07:55:29+00:00): Ja deine Lösung wäre die beste.
alt_name=BrotpilotInnen
loc_name=Brotpiloten

Alternativ oder zusätzlich kannst du noch den Tag old_name=Brotpiloten verwenden ;)

Ist noch was unklar? :)
BunnyAlive (2026-02-27 20:22:53+00:00): Aktuell soweit alles klar. Ich werde mich noch mehr mit der Dateneingabe bei OSM beschäftigen ;-).
vectorial8192 (2026-02-26 04:21:47+00:00): Several observations on past data:

- if segment at Chuk Yuen Estate is full straight, then why no extra station? therefore, not straight.
- railways do avoid e.g. Hsin Kuang Centre, but the fit is still too tight.
- by survey, the left/right turns in opposite directions do not match each other; therefore, obviously asymmetric.
kingkingHK (2026-02-26 06:12:19+00:00): Wow. That's very unexpected. Mind sharing exactly how you came to this result? Specifically, I have some doubts as the new curves are too far away from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/950181594 , and would block the Chuk Yuen Village Developments.
vectorial8192 (2026-02-26 08:42:41+00:00): My understanding of emergency access points is that they only have to be "close enough" to the actual rails. For example, the Chinese HSR Kwai Chung EAP (not in OSM, currently transitional housing) is not on top of the rails, but actually beside them.

I vaguely remember there will be 3 tall residential buildings for the Developments, 1 on the west plot and 2 on the east plot (citation needed), but basically, surface level works (e.g. piping) can't go that deep, and only the tall buildings will interact with the railway tunnels. Imagine/Expect a few years later when satellite imagery finally shows how the new buildings are actually placed, and then we can further review the railway curves.

To reproduce/verify this changeset, on the surface level you can count the number of left/right turns. For a deeper look, you can measure the rail curvature by standing at the car links and then noting how your chord intersects the arc. 

More details can be given at Discord to avoid cluttering this for too much, but also because there may be image explanations.
kingkingHK (2026-02-26 10:05:27+00:00): If it's fine to be that close to the Developments surely it's not too tight to e.g. Hsin Kuang Centre. But I'll wait for more details on Discord first.
HolloWorld (2026-04-21 00:08:11+00:00): This is not accurate to the chart. Reverting.
Please check somewhere in mtr website for accurate track position, TML,KTL,TKL is calibrated to them.
HolloWorld (2026-04-21 00:16:27+00:00): please really ride the train before "measure" those curve.
OOT: they just don't use 3 more month to construct cross platform interchange at diamond hill so where you "measured" they will add station
common sense should not use in Hong Kong nowdays.
vectorial8192 (2026-04-21 04:37:50+00:00): @HolloWorld I get what you are trying to say, but I doubt we can use MTR Railway Protection Area charts as per copyright laws. I also did ride the trains. There may be inaccuracies, but the overall idea should be correct.

I must reiterate that the old curves must be wrong somehow because e.g. the section under Wong Tai Sin Road cannot possibly be full straight.
kingkingHK (2026-04-21 05:58:39+00:00): I am with @HolloWorld on this one.

------------

Re Railway Protection Area, Kovoschiz once DM'ed me on Discord: "For railway protection plans, the copyright of maps in law is a more peculiar question that I can't confirm much. While,  "according to government information" is usually can't be used, and other maps or unknown copyright are assumed can't be used. Also funnily, law text itself is somehow copyrighted for reproduction or publishing, but it should be uncopyrightable and usable."

------------

But still, regardless of their copyright status, this changeset is still questionable:

> if segment at Chuk Yuen Estate is full straight, then why no extra station? therefore, not straight. 

What? Just because a section with a station would be straight, does not necessarily mean a section without a station would not be straight. That's fallacy of denying the antecedent. I thought you said you often do logic. If you really want to know why: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E9%A6%AC%E4%BB%94%E5%9D%91%E9%81%8A%E6%A8%82%E5%A0%B4?useskin=vector#%E7%88%AD%E8%AD%B0

> railways do avoid e.g. Hsin Kuang Centre, but the fit is still too tight. 

What about Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate? As mentioned on Discord, the Married Quarters is on 20 mPD while Upper WTS Estate is on 23 mPD; existing osm data says the Married Quarters are 25 storeys while UWTSE is 42 storeys, so UWTSE actually has a higher likelihood of intersecting with the tunnels.

> by survey, the left/right turns in opposite directions do not match each other; therefore, obviously asymmetric.

The number of left and right turns in this changeset might be correct (I successfully verified that), but the radius might not be. (see further below)

------------

So basically there's no evidence that this changeset is a net improvement compared to the old data. Then, simply do nothing and assuming the existing data is correct. If you still make a questionable change anyway, imo it deserves to be reverted. I only didn't do it myself because I don't have any better data, and wanted to avoid an edit war/community schism. I welcome @HolloWorld's reversion.

------------

Some additional concerns:

- According to wikipedia, an SP1900 car is 24-25 metres long, but @vectorial8192 thought it was 22.

- @vectorial8192's measurement method relies on eyeballing, which has low resolution and accuracy.

- The measurement method has not been tested and verified to be accurate/useful beforehand.
vectorial8192 (2026-04-21 10:12:49+00:00): These are valid concerns. I couldn't come back to this, but I later also thought to myself, even the (made by me and currently reverted) curves seemed sus.

With this reversion, I will still do another changeset to revert this reversion, but this time, I will prepare in more detail. The strategy will be to do many low-quality measurements so that the overall average cannot be too inaccurate. The previous strategy of "eyeball it once" failed because the curves here are too irregular.
HolloWorld (2026-04-21 23:18:52+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a place for you to "guess" things, the chart I got can't be publicly published, through the way now is a bit off to the chart for not overlapping nodes, but it should be +-5m
Using a phone's G sensor/video from MTR to calculate the position is much more better than those first grade level fantasy tunnel drawing.
Any further "calculate by hand" changeset will be followed by forward to DWG.
vectorial8192 (2026-04-22 05:24:15+00:00): Again, @HolloWorld I get what you are trying to say, but I think we have the understanding / consensus that YouTube videos should not be used for OSM purposes. While a phone's G-meter can somewhat help, I don't see how it can strongly help.

It seems to me that you are thinking that I am trying to grief the map, which motivates your "forward to DWG" opinion. While I cannot guarantee every changeset I make is consistently high-quality, it should be clear that I have been trying to improve the map by continuing to supply reasonable changesets. That's not something a griefer would do.

This need not involve the DWG (but then I do not believe the DWG is interested in this kind of small-scale quality issue).
HolloWorld (2026-04-22 08:22:50+00:00): Although we got nothing on internet that can be used to drawing, but the video can definitely show that the way now is accurate enough.
The quality and making everyone else misunderstanding how the train runs makes the change you made as griefing enough, and I can't stand with such horrible changes and keep saying "trying to make it better with more eyeballing" as an improvement to the map.

sorry for any altitude as I am fucking everyone in service industry.
Kovoschiz (2026-04-22 08:32:03+00:00): I will add that it seems contradictory to align through 2 buildings of Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate. Not aligning through Fung Tak EAP directly is suspicious. In historical imagery (Esri Clarity, Wayback), it can be further seen Fung Tak EAP is the works shaft. 
Tunneling under podium is possible, and towers especially hillside. Underpinning is not uncommon either. Disruption or risk to Lung Cheung Rd is a bigger concern. Wong Tai Sin Telephone Exchange would be almost impossible to divert.
Kovoschiz (2026-04-22 08:33:38+00:00): One might experiment with "eyeballing". But it should be validated with known correct cases.
Baloo Uriza (2026-02-26 16:56:40+00:00): It's a good idea to include the street names on sidewalks.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179067493
hellflower (2026-03-05 16:20:22+00:00): Thanks, I was wondering about that!
mga_geo (2026-02-26 20:29:45+00:00): Bonsoir,
J'utilise PTNA pour surveiller entre autres la continuité des trajets de bus.
Et PTNA avait détecté une discontinuité au niveau de ce rond-point.
Je ne l'avais pas trouvé avec JOSM.
Comment as-tu trouvé cette "erreur" ?
Marc
mat (2026-02-27 06:33:29+00:00): J'utilise l'éditeur ID en ligne, et lorsqu'un noeud au bout d'une way n'est connecté à rien, il apparaît avec une icone plus grosse, il suffit en général de fusionner deux noeuds qui sont quasiment superposés mais différents.
ToniE (2026-02-27 08:40:16+00:00): Marc, ça marche aussi avec JOSM, mais peut-être tu as essayė de trouver l'erreur quand l'erreur était déjà corrigée ?
Toni
NeisBot (2026-02-26 06:30:42+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/13601687300 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-22 14:38:05+00:00): Reverted addition of blatant SEO spam advertising tags to a highway node in changeset 184435361

https://osm.org/changeset/184435361
kylor (2026-02-26 06:56:24+00:00): press "q" while the building is selected to square the buildings so they don't end up an unusual shape. Thank you for contributing in the area!
mueschel (2026-02-27 17:58:01+00:00): Hi,
"name:zh_zhuyin" doesn't exist. The proper tag is "name:zh-Bopo" - which already exists on the objects you edited.
totera (2026-02-26 11:03:31+00:00): Ciao Camoscio Sibillini,
visto che la maggior parte delle applicazioni basate su OpenStreetMap non utilizzano i dati in tempo reale, l'indicazione è di mappare chiusure temporanee se il periodo previsto è di almeno 6/9 mesi (vedi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction)
TrickyFoxy (2026-02-28 10:44:46+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179165376
MappingMore (2026-02-27 15:42:18+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179137274
rhhs (2026-02-26 18:56:17+00:00): Thank you! :)
aceman444 (2026-06-16 19:44:38+00:00): Ona uz bola oznacena ako zburana pred Vasou zmenou, ale kedze moze byt viditelna na starsich fotkach este nejaky cas, robi sa to takto, ze sa objekt ponecha a zmeni na removed:building=* .

Takze tato Vasa zmena nie je prinosom.
aceman444 (2026-06-16 19:47:34+00:00): Pardon, toto som zle pochopil. Zmena je spravna, na removed:building=yes. area=yes bolo zbytocne, ale to uz ste vyriesili. Dakujem.
NeisBot (2026-02-26 07:57:42+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/13601921639 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-26 10:32:07+00:00): The location appears to be incorrect. It should be listed here instead:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.037292/-77.029210

Could you please update your entry accordingly?

Thank you.
Senihtu (2026-05-12 05:46:07+00:00): Hi!
Schön, daß Du bei OSM mit machst!
Könntest Du Dir diese Änderung nochmal genauer ansehen?
Du hast Straße und Hausnummer verändert, den Punkt aber am gleichen Platz gelassen.
Ist die Praxis umgezogen? Dann sollte man den Punkt verschieben. 
Oder war das mit der Adressänderung ein Irrtum? 
happy mapping!
cheatach (2026-02-26 08:47:19+00:00): Tego typu opisy należy umieszczać w znaczniku description, znacznik name przeznaczony jest na nazwę własną obiektu. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Nazwy#Nazwa_jest_tylko_nazw%C4%85