piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ethical_haquer (2026-02-16 20:06:52+00:00): Sorry, and thanks for the heads up.
I used CoMaps to make this edit, I have no idea why it didn't include a comment in this case.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-30 17:43:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9066685842/history 

Czy zmiana "Stowarzyszenie Inżynierów i Techników Mechaników Polskich Oddział w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim" na "Stowarzyszenie Inżynierów i Techników Mechaników Polskich Oddział w Gorzowie" miała jakiekolwiek nawet uzasadnienie?
rempshaener (2026-01-22 17:50:47+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Zumindest laut Luftbild ist an diesem Punkt keine Saugstelle. Liegt diese eventuell woanders?
Woraus genau soll denn gesaugt werden? suction_point gilt für offene (natürliche) Gewässer. Meinst du eventuell etwas anderes?

Viele Grüße
Leon_Elbe (2026-01-23 13:25:23+00:00): Moin, 

an diesem Punkt existiert keine Saugstelle. Es handelt sich um ein Test Punkt.

Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-01-23 18:47:04+00:00): Hallo,
dann lösche ihn nur bitte zeitnah wieder.
Viele Grüße
silversurfer83 (2026-01-22 19:40:18+00:00): Moin Andi :)

zwei Kleinigkeiten:

- highway=footway impliziert schon alles, was du nun zusätzlich angegeben hast. Um es nicht unnötig kompliziert zu machen, lassen wir diese impliziten Berechtigungen daher weg.

- Guck mal bitte hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments 
Danke

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177572690
impiaaa (2026-01-22 18:44:27+00:00): "This is stated on Google Maps and on the company's website." Please do not copy from Google Maps, it is illegal.
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-23 16:27:15+00:00): Is this in the right spot?  It appears to be on the lawn of a private home.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177572844
CarrytheLight (2026-01-23 18:26:36+00:00): This property has 7 duplexes and one office building now.  I don't know if I got it exact, but that marker is on the approximate location of the office building.
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-23 19:23:42+00:00): Is it the first or the second building from the intersection on the south side?
CarrytheLight (2026-01-23 19:40:33+00:00): When you pull in on Cottage Lane, to the right is a small well house, behind that is a shop, behind that is a larger shop.  North (?) of those building is the office.  Here is a link to Google Earth of the area:  https://earth.google.com/web/@35.560653,-97.32604973,358.26251758a,260.71176621d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=CgRCAggBQgIIAEoNCP___________wEQAA
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-24 00:24:19+00:00): OSM is not able to use Google as a source, but the buildings are visible on Esri Imagery, which we can use.
CarrytheLight (2026-01-26 18:59:30+00:00): That works too! How long will it take to get this updated?
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-26 21:24:13+00:00): Is it the first or the second building from the intersection on the south side?
CarrytheLight (2026-01-26 22:51:20+00:00): When you drive onto Cottage Lane from Highland Ave, the office is the building right after the 2nd driveway.
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-30 15:18:17+00:00): Got it updated.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177572844
CarrytheLight (2026-01-30 15:23:57+00:00): Perfect!! Thanks so much!!
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-31 00:52:55+00:00): No problem!
silversurfer83 (2026-01-22 19:43:06+00:00): Hi :)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen

Das hier ist eine Beschreibung. Dass es sich um einen Altglascontainer handelt hast du vollkommen korrekt mit
amenity=recycling + recycling_type=container + recycling:glass_bottles=yes erfasst.

Den Name bitte wieder löschen. Danke
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177573066
NeisBot (2026-01-23 06:55:03+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/13477053615 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Centro de atención médica"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-30 07:09:15+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177876614
(No visible changes after review)
zstadler (2026-03-02 08:20:38+00:00): Hello P-E_LRX,

There seem to be two versions of the Akagera National Park:
1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20127015, created about a month ago in this changeset.
2. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1708935, created about 14 years ago.

About 4 months ago, in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173585190, the geometry of the older relation was broken. That is probably the reason you have unknowingly created the newer relation.

After some discussion with the other mapper, I have restored the geometry of the older relation in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179241112

Would it be OK with you if I remove the duplication by reverting this changeset?

Best regards,
zstadler
P-E_LRX (2026-03-02 11:42:28+00:00): Hello @zstadler

The data for Akagera was shared with me by Joshua Wiess who works for African Parks who manages the park. So I trust very well the data are the most accurate. 

Kindly share your thoughts. 

Regards,

Paulo
zstadler (2026-03-02 19:17:12+00:00): IMHO, there are two issues here:

1. Two relations exist for the same park
2. What are the proper boundaries of the park

I would like to see the first issue resolved because currently, the "One feature, one OSM element" guideline is not met.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element

As for the second issue, perhaps you could reach-out to your contact at African Parks, and ask him to look at the differences between the definitions of the two boundaries, as can be seen in this link:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2lsa

Regards,
zstadler
P-E_LRX (2026-03-02 22:17:50+00:00): I know the one I added was shared with me by African Parks they changed the boundaries with the Rwanda development board. The former boundaries are outdated. I would delete the older one..
zstadler (2026-03-03 17:59:37+00:00): I agree
mueschel (2026-01-27 14:31:46+00:00): Hi,
these crossing signals have several tags that are not used on other crossings, could you check this and change to common tags?
eggie (2026-01-22 19:44:43+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
Rainero (2026-03-18 17:39:57+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180071627
(unzulässige Quelle)
Colbertson (2026-01-22 18:20:41+00:00): Quite a few of those kindergardens were already on the map, please double check before adding duplicate points.
HellMap (2026-01-22 18:33:49+00:00): These look just like previous edits in the area by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AK_2 , so possibly the same person. In any case, we are not going to spend the time again fixing and reverting duplicate points, while OSM data remains incorrect while we wait for a reply, so I have reverted these changes.
silversurfer83 (2026-01-22 19:43:36+00:00): Alles klar :)

so passts
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177574062
Glassman (2026-01-25 00:29:29+00:00): #TIP: try not to connnect the node to an existing feature. They are usually on a stand alone pole. Also did you know about the deFrock editor which is an easier way to added Flock devices?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177574172
no details provided here (2026-01-23 09:24:52+00:00): Big thanks for adding this detail in!  I've asked but never been able to get access to the rear of properties on this estate to log what you've managed.  I do still have notes for other parts of the estate from my last visit to add in.
felipeeugenio (2026-01-25 11:46:23+00:00): Hola. Por favor no copiar información de fuentes no permitidas en OSM.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177575452
SekeRob (2026-02-11 10:25:13+00:00): Hi forcella

Please stop mapping ways on top of existing ways (are you importing???). Use the existing ways and add the hiking route relation to those. gscholz and I have been repairing, You can see for instance route 937 which has parts shared with 2 other routes. If you don't know how, ask on the Italian community forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/it/60
cheers 6 happy mapping
gscholz (2026-02-20 07:37:37+00:00): Hi forcella,
this error still exits:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=11.63041&lat=43.64415&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
forcella (2026-02-20 09:10:00+00:00): Buongirno Guido 
Vi chiedo scusa per il grave errore che ho commesso. avevo la testa da un'altra parte . 
apprezzo molto la vostra professionalitò e attenzione che mettete a questo lavoro
gscholz (2026-02-26 08:05:45+00:00): Hi forcella,
this error still exits. Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
ivanbranco (2026-01-30 19:40:59+00:00): I "campi rom", quantomeno dalle mie parti, non sono amenity=refugee_site, ma più che altro https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Tag:residential=halting%20site
Frans S (2026-02-14 11:19:35+00:00): Thanks for mapping on this project.
A remark. When an object shows no shadow, it is not above ground level.
Don't map/tag those objects.
And, square each rectangular building.
Best regards and keep mapping
Rainero (2026-03-18 17:14:41+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180070747
(unzulässige Quelle)
kabelhaai (2026-01-25 15:31:07+00:00): relation seems broken at this moment, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19877975
eggie (2026-01-22 19:58:14+00:00): Dag mrspitz,
Niet valide tags verwijderd. Achter source= kun je meer bronnen toevoegen met een ; ertussen. 

MVG
eggie
mrspits4ever (2026-01-23 18:57:02+00:00): Hallo Eggie, dank voor de feedback.

Ik had deze tags per ongeluk uit de historische gedeelte van de source tag wikipagina gehaald. Ik leesde er toch net iets te makkelijk doorheen 😕.

Is het handig om naast de "source=BAG;survey" ook "source:date" aan te passen naar gister? of is "survey:date" beter?

Bedankt

Mrspits
eggie (2026-01-23 19:00:53+00:00): Die sleutels gaven een foutmelding in de validator van editor josm.
Denk zomaar dat ze niet valide zijn.
Gr eggie
eggie (2026-01-23 19:02:39+00:00): De source:date is de datum van import vanuit de BAG. (Kadaster)
De BAG importeur kan dan zien wanneer de laatste update is gedaan.
eggie (2026-01-23 19:04:35+00:00): ..survey:date is overigens wel valide en een extra tag
Zie wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:survey:date
eggie (2026-01-23 19:08:17+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:survey:date
Vreemd dat de validator er op aanslaat.
Ik zet je toevoegings straks wel terug
eggie (2026-01-23 19:18:16+00:00): Ik heb ze even teruggezet..  Uiteraard wel foutmelding, maar de wiki geeft ze als valide aan.
Maar eigenlijk kom ik alleen maar source=...;....;...   tegen.
Up to you.
Groet,
eggie
Groet,
eggie
mrspits4ever (2026-01-23 19:31:01+00:00): Hi eggie

> Vreemd dat de validator er op aanslaat. 

ik denk dat de validator hier wel gelijk heeft dat ze incorrect zijn. De verwarring treed hier (ook bij mij) op doordat de "key:source" wikipagina gebruikt lijkt te worden voor zowel OpenStreetMap als OpenHistoricalMap.

Even een snip uit de wiki, onder de kop "OpenHistoricalMap":

"Unlike OpenStreetMap, OpenHistoricalMap continues to tag source=* on individual features. In fact, you are generally expected to add source=* to each individual feature to avoid the appearance of plagiarism."

De koppen erboven over het aangeven van sources met bvb. "source:website" hebben allemaal "(historical)" in de naam. Wat mij de indruk geeft dat ze alleen voor OpenHistorical bedoelt zijn.

Ik zal de source:website & source:name weghalen. survey:date toevoegen

Groet

mrspits
eggie (2026-01-23 19:34:08+00:00): 👍
mrspits4ever (2026-01-23 20:34:48+00:00): Correctie gedaan, bedankt voor het meedenken 🙂
Coirib (2026-01-23 11:07:49+00:00): Hey,

Relation: 251: Cork Airport -> Galway Ceannt Station (20120990)

This bus route goes to and from Galway Coach Station not Galway Ceannt Station
Frans S (2026-01-24 10:47:29+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177576781
mueschel (2026-01-27 14:24:04+00:00): Hallo,
was ist denn "Leistung"? Ist "flow_rate" gemeint?
FF Gmünd-Breitensee (2026-01-27 18:40:59+00:00): Hallo,
Ja das ist die flow_rate.
eggie (2026-01-22 19:47:35+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
eggie (2026-01-22 19:51:53+00:00): Dag dcs,
Er staat inderdaad een afrastering, maar er is ook een verbinding in het echt. Wel met access=no
Ik heb het stuk weg teruggezet ook al heeft het nu geen functie.

MVG
eggie
rarad74 (2026-01-22 19:33:18+00:00): Hi. Those all are living streets because enter in private rezidential parcels. I corrected. Please for the future do not draw residential streets on private parcels. Thanks
lampronessa (2026-01-22 22:20:29+00:00): Hello rarad74. Thank you for letting me know these ways should be living street classification. In the future I will digitize these as living street. Hope you have a nice day!
Gaessje (2026-02-16 10:41:25+00:00): Hallo,
das ist ein schöner Pfad, sehr gut zu gehen (gestern sogar bei Nässe möglich). Das solltest du auch wieder als path eintragen (wie zuvor korrekt kartiert).
Gruß - Gaessje
onterof (2026-02-16 11:03:04+00:00): Hallo, ich wollte dort hochgehen, aber da war im Wesentlichen nur  ein sehr stark zugewucheter und vor allem sehr tiefer Graben. Man erkennt in der Mitte auf dem Luftbild auch gut den Durchlass für Wasser. Bei so ein Entwässerungsgraben der mMn hier eindeutig vorliegt ist path denke ich nicht passend.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:waterway%3Dditch
Gaessje (2026-02-16 16:38:27+00:00): Die Situation vor Ort hat sich verändert. Im gesamten Hohlweg wurde der Bewuchs entfernt, sodass jetzt ein gut ausgetretener Pfad zu sehen ist.
onterof (2026-02-16 18:47:52+00:00): Dass sich in dieser kurzen Zeit dort etwas getan hat wundert mich zwar, aber ich habe path und trackgrade mal eingetragen und den Durchlass entflochten, wo man definitiv nicht zu anderen Wegen kann.

Endlose Diskussionen im changeset sehe ich nicht als nötig an, wenn ein changeset den Zustand beschreibt, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt anzutreffen war und dieser sich danach ändert. Da darf man sonst gerne auch einfach selbst ändern, wenn vor Ort was anderes zu sehen ist. Grüße.
Glassman (2026-01-25 00:31:14+00:00): #TIP: square the buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177577802
RedAuburn (2026-01-22 18:57:48+00:00): src https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5139071
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-23 16:27:44+00:00): Is this in the right spot?  Looks like it was added in the middle of the street.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177577929
Glassman (2026-01-25 00:36:50+00:00): Can you go back and finishing adding parking spaces, at least to this row since you removed the previous parking polygon. these are great BTW
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177578752
Frans S (2026-02-14 11:59:17+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
You regularly mapped courtyards as a building. Often you see a fenced yard (cattle yard) where you can see the inside as well as the outside of such an object.
Don't map them as a building
Best regards and keep mapping
NeisBot (2026-01-23 06:51:23+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 35 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1213002286 v2 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/553855514 v6 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/553855513 v10 | 9 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177579403
NeisReview (2026-01-30 07:09:25+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177668348
SomeoneElse (2026-01-23 19:53:23+00:00): Hello,
Andy from the DWG again:

More feedback from the locals - apparently the northwestern part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1469590576/history is "gorse/woody shrubs and rocky outcrops" (so perhaps natural=scrub in OSM) and the southeastern part "is indeed a grassy field" (which would actually suggest meadow in OSM rather than grassland, to be honest).

Best Regards,
Andy
Glassman (2026-02-24 03:05:01+00:00): Se pare că în această editare, precum și în altele, clădirile trebuie să fie pătrate. Pentru a pătra clădirea, selectați conturul, apoi tastați pur și simplu „q”. Încercați să potriviți linia acoperișului cu conturul clădirii. 

in English:
It appears on this edit as well as other that buildings need to be squared. To square the building, select the outline then just type a "q". Try to match the roof line to the building outlines.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177580060
Frans S (2026-01-25 10:30:46+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please be more accurate and square each rectangular building.
Your mappings are rather rough.
Best regards
mueschel (2026-01-25 11:37:13+00:00): Hi,
is there really a village here? I can't find anything in the aerial images.
norgis (2026-01-28 12:49:39+00:00): You just removed the shop=yes tag instead of specifying like your changeset indicates? Do you know the location you canged here?
NeisBot (2026-01-23 06:55:06+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/13322148769 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-30 07:09:16+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177876615
(No visible changes after review)
Glassman (2026-01-25 00:33:58+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177580532
eggie (2026-01-22 19:53:59+00:00): Commentaar moet zijn reshaped landuse
NeisBot (2026-01-23 06:51:44+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 28 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1081336582 v1 | 7 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1421785766 v2 | 7 crossings
https://osm.org/way/430866692 v5 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/8980773471 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177580704
NeisReview (2026-01-30 07:09:25+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177639487
Rascar_capac (2026-02-07 16:09:53+00:00): Bonjour, 
vous avez ajouté une remontée mécanique qui n'existe pas sur le domaine des Arcs.
En conséquence je la supprime
Minh Nguyen (2026-02-17 07:18:06+00:00): Thank you so much for making this change! I had been meaning to clear out the old numbers but it fell off my radar. [1] Aside from the countywide plan, the City of San José does have a system of three-letter codes that appear prominently on trail markers. [2] We should probably map them as ref=* along with the colors as colour=* and the icons as symbol=* – please feel free to take that on if you have the time. Thanks again!

[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vestigial-pacific-coast-bicycle-route/114350/23
[2] https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9855/636656974736870000#page=80
Frans S (2026-01-24 11:04:29+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, do not map courtyards . Check the Mapbox imagery for a clearer view.


Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177581564
Frans S (2026-01-24 11:02:01+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, do not map courtyards. Only buildings.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177581568